Right, the heat pump will reduce energy use to maybe 1/3 of a gas furnace, but natural gas is something like 6x cheaper for the same amount of energy, so it is an expensive folly.
If California is serious about this, they need to reign in the utilities to reduce prices and or stop the attacks on solar installation.
Natural gas won’t stay cheap. It was cheap here in Australia 10 years ago and now it’s so expensive no one can afford to run gas heating and it’s only going up. Now (thankfully) the government has banned the installation of new gas heating and a lot of people are getting rid of gas cooking, hot water heating etc… it’s for the best.
The only reason that natural gas prices in Australia have gone up in the past 10 years is that gas producers in the eastern states were able to start exporting gas as LNG.
As of 2023, Australia is the world's second largest LNG exporter (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1262074/global-lng-expor...) after the US (take that Russia!) and ahead of Qatar. Great for the gas exporting cartel but not so great for ordinary Australians in eastern states who now pay the same for gas as people in Tokyo. (And Aussies wonder why manufacturers keep leaving...)
Banning domestic gas usage for new homes (which the fools running Victoria, the state I live in, have done) will do nothing for emissions but will mean that the gas cartel can make even more money exporting LNG to Asia. Bravo!
The exception is Western Australia which is also a massive LNG exporter but has stricter domestic reservation requirements than the eastern states.
What you seem to be saying is that Australians had gas that was artificially cheap because it wasn't being bought and sold at international market rates, and once that started happening and the market was no longer distorted by trade limitations, the fair market price was not longer attractive to Australian customers.
(Personally, I think all countries, to the extent that they can, ought to both reduce domestic fossil fuel use and at the same time impose strict limits on its export. We're all better off if it just stays in the ground.)
It wasn't "artifically" cheap nor was the market "distorted". It was merely the physical reality prior to the innovation of LNG.
It would only be fair to say it was artifically cheap, say, if the Australian government was imposing tariffs or subsidising production. I don't think it was doing that, and as it was, the producers were sufficiently incentivised by the market to produce and sell gas domestically.
Mail (physical means of communicating in writing and print) and email (connecting two people with digital signal) are similar but not a great comparison when comparing consumption of natural gas. Technology literally created additional markets for the same material, by modifying it so it could be transported more efficiently over long distances. I think you could say the new methods of natural gas production and storage are more efficient just as easily as saying the old methods were simply inefficient (it would have been possible to pipeline gas from AU to markets across the ocean, but it didn’t make economic sense because it would have been terribly costly and thus an inefficient use of resources)
> Mail (physical means of communicating in writing and print) and email (connecting two people with digital signal) are similar but not a great comparison when comparing consumption of natural gas.
What?
You are missing the point. We're talking about "markets" not the specific "tech/substitutes." It could be any technology disruption. Such disruption doesn't mean the prior status quo IN THE MARKET was inefficient. The tech shock just resets equilibrium.
Further, your explanation is circular, and I propose it has to do with muddling terminology and concepts.
Here's one inconsistency. Either the markets didn't exist (You said they need to be "created."), or they did exist, but a pipeline connecting them was too expensive.
> Technology literally created additional markets
> it would have been possible to pipeline gas from AU to markets across the ocean, but it didn’t make economic sense
It's clearly a bad deal for Australians, who now pay higher gas prices, but not for international importers, who probably pay less because of increased competition.
Higher gas prices is good for fighting climate change - it makes renewable energy more competitive. Now, is the opposite the case for, say the Japanese, who import gas from Australia? Are they less incentivized to switch away? Probably somewhat, but less so, because of transaction and transportation costs.
>> will do nothing for emissions
> How can that be?
Because a reduction of domestic gas usage will just be diverted to less efficient LNG exports.
Given that by far the largest source of Victoria's electricity generation capacity is from dirty brown coal [1] if anything banning domestic gas usage might even make emissions worse since it will force people to use only electricity for cooking and heating.
> Direct consumption emissions are eliminated.
Ah, so burning Aussie natural gas in Asia (after it's been liquified and then turned back into gas) is somehow better for the environment than just burning it in Australia?
The chart you link to shows that Brown Coal, as both a total, and as an overall percentage of the grid, is decreasing, with renewables increasing.
Indeed, if you look at the three Brown Coal generators in Victoria[1], Yallorn is due to shut down in 2028 taking ~30% (1480MW) of that away, followed by Loy Yang A in 2035 which will take another ~40% (2200MW) of that capacity.
So, banning new LNG appliances now, and starting that migration will have a net positive impact.
This is true even if the LNG continues to be burned overseas if it's replacing coal fired generation capacity.
Is the correct strategy to wait to regulate gas usage until every country on earth does the same? That doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Someone always has to be last.
If you want to help the environment, you regulate both gas usage and exports. The goal is to keep gas in the ground, where it belongs, not to move it to other countries.
Except gas exports are largely being used to retire brown coal burning which is even worse for the environment than LNG. This isn't an all-or-nothing deal even with exports. The richer countries should take on the costs of better efficiency first and we can trickle those technologies down to other nations as they become cheaper than LNG and coal.
It is stupid, with less Gas available on the LNG Market other LNG Producers will increase production or they will use other Energy sources such as coal.
Except that it won't be that way forever. 30% of that generation goes away in 4 years. The rate of solar and wind generators coming onto the grid is massive, putting pressure on the brown coal generators.
We are also not talking about ripping out the existing install base of appliances.
It will take at least a decade or two for that switch to reach a critical mass. That's the point when it becomes uneconomic to continue operating the domestic piped LNG network in Victoria.
It costs money to transport LNG abroad. Ships, terminal infrastructure maintenance, people, it's all overhead. Ultimately if people stop using natural gas domestically there will be a reduction in production because that overhead eats into the profits of the producers.
Interesting. Of course transporting gas across the Australian continent and selling it cheaply is a lot less lucrative than selling it abroad in lng form. So, I can see why they would focus on exports rather than a relatively small domestic market that is on the other side of the continent.
Anyway, Australia has no excuse for not using solar energy. Which is exactly what they are doing over there despite conservative governments trying to slow that down for the last decade or so. I doesn't need to depend on fossil fuels.
In the US natural gas is a byproduct of shale oil extraction and we have a limited capacity to move or export it so it's almost priced as a waste product.
It's unlikely that electricity will be any cheaper than gas soon either, since that's where 40% (and growing, as our coal and nuclear fleet are retired) of our electricity comes from.
Today solar electricity is already cheaper than natural gas and by 2030-31 solar and wind electricity cost will be 1/4 to 1/8 of today's prices looking at the avg 10% cost decline we are seeing. The advantage of natural gas being cheaper than solar was 4-5 years ago now it's no longer the case. Natural gas advantage now is of having being able to produce electricity when needed but as battery storage prices drop it will also be priced out from that market in many places with solar and wind availablity.
> solar electricity is already cheaper than natural gas
Does that include transmission? Most population centers already have the pipeline network needed to bring them gas but the getting power from giant solar projects in the desert (where it's sunny) to the eastern interconnection (where most people live) is still an unmet need.
> as battery storage prices drop
Eventually, but at present our grid-scale storage has a capacity of ~30GW on a grid of ~1200GW; it's going to take something like a trillion dollars and a generation to build out grid-scale storage to the point where we can even support a 100% renewable grid.
We'll get there eventually but until grid-scale storage is installed and ready, the gas plants (with their fast start/stop ability) are what's enabling the renewables to come online and replace our older coal and nuke plants.
We're probably going to have to lean even more on gas since the first ~500GW of renewables are replacing existing coal/nuclear we're losing, but once the grid storage tech catches up we can start installing that in lieu of new gas plants and replacing the ones we've already built.
Tl;dr: we'll get there but not in the lifetime of a furnace
“Europe remained the main destination for U.S. LNG exports in December, with 5.43 MT, or just over 61%. In November, 68% of U.S. LNG exports were to Europe, LSEG data showed.”
Of course there is a global market for all fossil fuels.
> Now (thankfully) the government has banned the installation of new gas heating
I'm sorry, but how does that make any sense, when 47% of the electricity production in Australia comes from coal?? They are banning a system that is actually pretty efficient at making heat, to instead use a low efficiency coal power plant, to produce electricity, to then use in heat pumps to produce heat. Simply, wow.
I remember a recent investor report posted on HN about declining health of permian basin, and the economics of extraction will increasingly not make sense in 10 years. Seems like no brainer if shale and by connection LNG is on way out. Might also explain Biden stalling LNG expansions especially with NATO on the hook, maybe it's cynical electioneering to his base, but maybe the future of cheap US LNG is not bright vs renewables.
Vaclav Smil's books about energy give some extra context. I have read his Power Density book (eye opening comparison of solar, wind, nuclear, fossil).
IIRC Gas extraction has an extremely high EROI (30x) initially, making it a highly productive extractive resource. But each gas well has a productive lifespan of approx 7 years requiring constant activity to sustain development.
Huge fan of Valclav Smil’s work. Note that the significant amount of water required to frack those wells is in the order of 1 million galls or more. Both sides of that is impacting the Edwards Aquifer[1]. Wastewater from wells is finally being treated, but it doesn’t seem to be a widespread practice, yet. It’s also possible that production declines after each subsequent refracking process.
The fossil fuel capitalists are so very unhappy about this ban, they are still going on about it in the financial news. I have to say, I love it. Low natural gas prices directly benefit me, and isn't it our gas?
The price has certainly come down (look at henry hub chart..), but also winter has not been too cold..
They should ban oil exports next.. (for "national security")
Actually export tariffs would be better than outright bans.
Interesting.. the same section banned any limitation on the importation of slaves... at least that clause had a sunset date. Both clauses were basically: "don't touch our cash cow".
Looking at that clause, it appears that it's only unconstitutional if the individual states do it. Doesn't say anything about the federal government or Congress. Or am I reading it wrong?
Southern Cali resident here: I got a mini split system installed a couple years back, and last year's eye-popping surprise gas bill inspired me to start running it backward for heat instead of using the furnace.
Pricewise, it's actually a wash. My electric bill went up by about $100 a month, whereas during the winter my gas bill was running about $100 a month to run the furnace (aside from that one random $600 bill one month last year that inspired this change). I've been using the mini split all winter and it's been great.
That isn't the table you actually care about because it doesn't hit the residential customer like that. The nominal $/therm in my area has been stable for the last 10 years which might be artificial but to my bank account it's all the same.
Obviously depends where you are & your use, but most of the gas bills here are everything but the actual gas. Transportation, distribution, storage, taxes, standby charges...
I'm in southern California as well, and my gas bill in dollars per therm are not at historic lows. However, price per therm did not double this winter like it did last winter...so far.
Thank you for posting that. Although the cost of electricity is important, when deciding on using a heat pump for heat, the big question is the cost of electricity for heating, relative to the cost of the fuel you are already using (natural gas, propane, oil, etc.).
It's definitely annoying to calculate! Since a heat pump's efficiency can vary with the outside temperature, it takes a bit of work to estimate your potential added electricity cost.
Modern great heatpumps, installed correctly, are rather between 5 and 7 in terms of COP. Also, even the best gas heating systems only achieve 90% efficiency. In other words, it either be very very very cold in your area, or you have to screw up the installation before gas has lower running(!) costs.
Besides that, a gas power plant easily achieves 33% of efficiency for generating electricity from gas, rather 50% for the new ones. In other words, if the price for electricity is more than 3 times as high as gas, there is a high chance that it's due to tax, regulations, etc. Though, the price for maintaining a stronger power grid comes on top.
I dunno. My mom’s heating bills in Indiana using heat pumps with auxiliary electric heaters was >$700 month at electricity costing 11c/kwh. I live in Massachusetts where my electricity cost 33c/kwh. So if I used my mom’s heater to heat a house of similar size, my heating bill will be $2k/month. My heating gas bill is under 120/month.
I understand a bulk of that cost comes from the aux resistive electric heater. But for really cold places, that’s needed when the heat pump can’t keep up or you need to rapidly warm the house.
As is, we are still quite far from heat pumps being cost efficient as gas for places that get really cold
They are not from the manufacturer but from an independent service that is used by various states that are members of the eu.
As you can see, at -7 degrees celsius, the COP is still almost 4. So even at that temperature, this heatpump is still about twice as afficient as burning gas directly.
Of course, it depends on the correct installation. It's easier to screw up the installation of a heat pump than a gas heating system. But it doesn't invalidate the theoretical bounds.
In the continental US you get ~2x the heat from burning natural gas in a combined cycle turbine to run a heat pump than you would from using a high efficiency gas furnace.
The market price of electricity vs gas varies quite a bit through time and various distortions of the market. Currently gas is cheap, but you want to compare historical averages when buying something that lasts 15+ years not simply look at current rates.
I don't think the numbers are accurate in the quantity of gas. Since kWh and BTU are both units of energy, finding the cf of gas is unnecessary (assuming the efficiency numbers are correct).
1 kWh = 3.6 megajoules and 1 BTU = 1055 joules
The 6.6 kWh of the heat pump is 23.76 MJ which is 22,521 BTU of energy. Assuming that the power plant and distribution are 60%, it would take 37,535 BTU of gas to produce (22,521/60%).
Instead, using that 37,535 BTU of gas in an 80% efficient furnace would only produce 30,028 BTU of heat, which is worse than the 50,000 BTU from the heat pump.
I'm pretty sure even a poor heat pump will be more efficient than heating directly with gas. (Of course, they have drawbacks, like they can leak their refrigerant that causes more of a greenhouse effect than CO2.)
> "(Of course, they have drawbacks, like they can leak their refrigerant that causes more of a greenhouse effect than CO2.)"
My heat pump contains 2.1 kg of R32 refrigerant. R32 has a GWP of 675, so that 2.1 kg is the equivalent of 1417 kgs of CO2. (older refrigerants were much worse!)
Heat pumps should never leak their refrigerant during their lifetime, and installers will remove and recycle the refrigerant when servicing or decommissioning systems. But of course, accidents happen, so let's pessimistically assume that 50% of systems installed will eventually leak. In the real world it's hopefully far less than that, but that would mean on average 708 kg CO2e in refrigerant is emitted per system over its lifetime.
On the other hand, heating a typical US home with natural gas emits 2900 kgs of CO2 per year.
I think it's safe to say that the climate impact of refrigerant leaks in modern heat pump systems is minuscule compared to that of the CO2 emitted from natural gas heating.
I dont know where EIA gets those numbers, but that was the basis of my calculation. Maybe I shouldn't have multiplied that by the efficiency of the plant, but rather just taken of distribution losses.
They are averaging the efficiency from the current fleet of gas turbines after subtracting the useful heat output and coming up with 44.4%.
However, it’s a misleading number in multiple ways because the fleet is made up of a mix of low and high efficiency turbines. Grid operators use a mix of turbine types as a cost optimization, a far cheaper and far less efficient turbine that’s only used 1% of the time it worth it. The average number of kWh per cf of gas is therefore heavily in favor of high efficiency turbines.
Dear god how do you keep sane with those kinds of units? You're making it so confusing you fail to realise some of your numbers don't quite line up
In sane units:
- 2 m^3 of gas generates 6.6 kWh of electricity
- which generates 14.7 kWh of heat (at some temperature
differential).
- The same 2 m^3 of gas generates 20.8 kWh of heat
- of which about 16.4 kWh is usable assuming some losses.
Of course your implied electricity generation is only around 31% efficient, so I'm not sure what that 60% you mention in the beginning is about. The COP you're using is around 2.2, which together with a 60% efficiency for generating electricity would be greater than 1, outstripping anything that's physically possible to achieve with a furnace.
What kind of system do you have that is only giving you (if I’ve converted the those very confusing units correctly) a COP of 2.2 at 10° C? That’s really very poor… There are air-to-water units that can achieve COP > 4 at 0° C, and even a good air-to-air should still be over COP 3… I’d expect to see a COP like that at -15° C or below on a modern unit…
Replace your heat pump? People installing new heat pumps are going to see much higher efficiency.
50,000 BTU = 5.27528 * 10 ^ 7 J = 14.6 kWh / 6.6 kWh = COP of 2.2 at 50f which is absolutely terrible. Modern heat pumps should have a COP around 4 at those temperatures and 3 near freezing.
Also, “Subtracting 10%” would mean your grid losses are 17%. “annual electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses averaged about 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States in 2018 through 2022.” So, (70% * (1 - 5%)) = 66.5%, but resistive losses are reduced in the cold. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
4 * 0.665 = 2.66x though obviously what matters here is the annual average COP. (3 * 0.665) = 1.995 aka 2.
I was assuming something was broken or had made a very poor choice of device. He clarified he was reading the wrong column, so it’s not quite as bad.
The technology isn’t advancing fast enough to make upgrading every 10 years necessary. You could buy units in 2000 with a significantly higher COP than he was implying.
People have; it's a obvious win. There are sites that do this for your zip code correctly, but an efficient EV gets 4 miles / kWH. An efficient hybrid gets under 60 MPG.
California's insanely high electricity rates are about $0.15 / kWh, so the energy costs $0.0375 per mile.
Gas has hovered around $4 / gallon or higher for a long time, giving a fuel cost of $0.0666 per mile.
Big energy guzzling EVs get about 2 miles / kWh, for $0.075 per mile, and gas guzzlers easily get below 15 MPG, or $0.26 per mile.
You'd have to go back to the days of $1 / gallon gas (mid 1990's?) and ignore inflation / lower electricity costs back then to conclude large ICE cars have competitive fuel costs. You'd "only" need to go back to $2 gas for the energy efficient hybrids to be competitive.
All electricity generation throughout the US is subsidized in various ways already - eg low interest loans for new generation capacity, programs for low income earners, not (or not effectively) charging for carbon and methane emissions, low fuel taxes on sources used for electricity generation. The "subsidies" you list help make a desirable energy source compete on a more level playing field - matching benefits that competing energy sources already receive.
My understanding is that when utilities buy energy from solar farms, they do so based on the demand and available supply, meaning that solar farms get paid more or less depending on these factors. But with net metering for residential solar installations, utilities are buying independent of supply/demand, which gives the residents a subsidy even vis-a-vis other solar producers.
I understand that all kinds of energy production methods are subsidized, but if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy.
Most US solar farms have a power purchase agreement that’s independent of real time market prices. Solar farms agree because being paid 2c/kWh or whatever for the first X years guarantees they can repay all loans. Utilities agree because it’s guaranteed to save them money.
Those power purchase agreements then makes it really easy to get loans.
There are all kinds of complications - commercial solar isn't dispatchable so it does tend to get lower rates than most other sources. In my jurisdiction residential (net metering) customers are only allowed to install a certain numbers of panels - corresponding with household energy consumption and assumed production levels (i.e. your monthly bill will never be negative - at lowest you'll be paying distribution charges and 0 for consumption). With low levels of residential solar installation, locally installed panels can help balance the grid as it is consumed on distribution lines and doesnt need transmission lines (conversely, high levels can unbalance the grid).
> if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy.
Paying them nothing would be even more unfair (and that's the only option available where I am at least - net metering or no household generation)
> Paying them nothing would be even more unfair (and that's the only option available where I am at least - net metering or no household generation)
I wasn't suggesting this. The phased rollback of net metering in California (the state mentioned in my original parent comment as "attacking" solar installation) means that solar owners will still get paid, just not as much as before. I'm sorry that you live somewhere that this middle option isn't available — the two extremes are indeed less fair!
Thank you for this clarification - I thought the discussion about changes to net metering was general, not California specific. Reading [1] about the changes to net metering in California, it seems reasonable, especially as it has high solar penetration. Hopefully it will (like many things) lead the way so that load shifting becomes simpler/more economical throughout North America.
I have heard of income-based billing, but that will apply regardless of whether you own solar panels. Also, some legislators are trying to repeal it before it goes into effect. [1-2]
Income-based base billing is indeed terrible, but it is not an attack on solar. You'd pay it whether you have panels or not. Also, legislators have apparently come to their senses and are looking to repeal it. [1-2] As for the pricing for power sent to the grid, I did mention the changes to net metering, which offer grandfathering for existing installations.
The high fixed monthly cost regardless of utilization means that compared to previous, my total costs for solar go up, even if my total costs for PGE supplied power don't. That will cause many fewer people to switch to solar or solar + battery.
It doesn't change the calculus for switching. It's the same fixed cost either way. The price is simply going up for customers who are not poor. I don't see how this makes someone more or less likely to switch to solar, since the dollar amount they can save stays the same.
An analogy: your kid's preschool has an option where you can volunteer once a month and save $50/month. One day, they announce that they are going to institute a new fee that ranges from $10-100, depending on your income.
How does that new fee cause fewer people to decide to volunteer?
Can you explain how the income-based fee results in lower savings? It is a fixed fee that applies whether or not you have solar.
To be clear, I think the income-based fee is a bad idea, but I just don't think it changes the calculus on installing solar. I have also had conversations about this specific question with a friend who has a PhD in urban planning, lives in CA, and is in the process of installing solar panels. It's possible she's wrong, but everything she says lines up with what I have read.
It sounds like you're referring to the net metering changes, which are separate from the income-based fee. That does change the calculus, obviously (which is why they grandfathered existing installs for 20 years).
Income based pricing encourages people to go off grid.
The upfront cost of doing that with a propane generator is about a half that of a battery + solar system (it's about a third if you go with battery + solar + generator, which is more comparable to a grid connection).
However, the maintenance and fuel costs of the generator mean that the solar will be much cheaper (and quieter!) to operate.
If the income based pricing is $100 / month, and the net energy / base connection cost is $0 / month (assuming an exactly sized solar system), then it'll take about 200 months for the generator to pay itself off. That's 16 years, which is a bit longer than the system will last, though replacing a generator costs about half what I've assumed above.
So, there's a pretty low upper limit to the amount they can screw with these fees before it's economically (though not necessarily environmentally) rational thing for individuals to just cut the cord and let the power grid death spiral.
Interesting, are you aware of anyone going off-grid for this reason? Where I live (Menlo), I don't think anyone would have a propane tank installed because of the size and unsightliness. The sound would also be annoying to them (and their neighbors, given how small the plots are). People generally build to the very edge of their property to maximize resale value, and this would take up a decent chunk of space. Maybe out in Woodside people would do this, since it's a bit more rural. Still, I've not heard of anyone saying the new income-based fees (which I disagree with, as noted above) are too high, and I'm going to install a propane tank and genearator. As you point out, this would go against the environmental rationale, which most folks with solar probably care a lot about. It's an interesting thought experiment though!
Depends how you see it. If you assume a neutral state of no incentives, adding benefits to stimulate growth and later removing this benefits once growth is achieved can be seen as "attacking this positive state" or simply "bringing back to neutral".
I moved to SoCal recently and didn't realize things like net metering even existed, so when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal".
> when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal".
I think at first people were (reasonably) scared that net metering might go away with no grandfathering for existing installations. People had a reasonable reliance interest in maintaining at least some of their existing benefits for the payoff period of their panels.
Once it was clear that existing installations would be grandfathered, I didn't hear much ranting anymore — just people who were bummed that a subsidy was going away (or people rushing to get in under the wire).
The problem with rooftop solar is that it is very, very, expensive compared to utility grade solar:
>…Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 117 and 282 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour.
If we want to subsidize a renewable energy source, why should we subsidize rooftop solar when we could subsidize utility grade solar or wind? Money is fungible and not unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind.
Rooftop solar subsidies are also unusual in that much of the subsidy is often paid by less well-off households to subsidize their wealthier neighbors - sort of a reverse Robinhood scheme.
OP was complaining about CA, and this appears to be an proposed law in AZ. It could affect CA utility prices because it relates to export, but it's not up to CA to decide what laws are passed in another state, governing the usage of land in that state.
In California the switch to NEM 3.0 more or less means that folks with solar will get socked with high monthly fees and much lower export rates (roughly wholesale instead of retail). NEM 3.0 came into effect in April of last year.
Right but we're talking the effect on new installs (and upgrades beyond a certain amount, and eventual maintenance on older NEM 1.0 and 2.0 installs). With NEM 1 exports were paid out at retail rates and there were no interconnect fees. With NEM 3 exports are paid at roughly wholesale rates with a $145 monthly interconnect fee. NEM 3 is absolutely an attack on solar installs.
Happy to have that conversation. I was replying to this language, which was not talking about new installs, or at least did not indicate so in any way:
> means that folks with solar will get socked with high monthly fees
"folks with solar" makes it sound like you're talking about people who have solar, not people who are considering putting in solar. Anyway, now that you've limited your comment to new installs, we are in agreement. There is a lower incentive for new solar installs, but IMO "lower incentives" do not amount to attacks. If other people think that it's an attack to give less free money to the purchasers of a product, they are welcome to do so (not saying you are, but others seem to think this).
Basically, to get subsidies, you need to install a battery storage system with a solar installation. This can be quite a bit more expensive than the solar alone. (worth it if possible, adds a backup in case of a power outage too)
If few people use net metering it's kind of fair. Your solar installation generates electricity, any excess gets delivered to your neighbors. The electricity is providing the infrastructure for that without making any money on that specific transaction (it gets deducted from your meter and added to your neighbors' meter), but that's easy enough to account for in base fees.
The issues start if too many people do net metering. Imagine everyone has a solar roof and reaches net-zero electricity. You can still maintain the infrastructure with base fees, but the electricity company still has to run power plants in the morning and evening when demand outstrips solar supply, and for baseload in the night. And during the day there's now an oversupply of electricity that they somehow have to sell.
In commercial electricity generation many countries have a kind of spot market for electricity, where prices are determined by demand (down to the minute) and available supply. Prices can go close to zero if lots of solar and wind capacity is available, or far above the price charged to consumer for capacity to cover the evening peak. If we changed consumer prices to more accurately reflected this "true" market price (plus markup for the grid operator), with prices changing by the minute, net metering would be pretty fair. But so far there's little desire to dump all that complexity on regular consumers.
> You can still maintain the infrastructure with base fees
In theory yes, but the grid has not used properly scoped base fees to pay for infrastructure. Delivery costs of power are more than half the total cost; to get to a base+generation model, you'd probably see monthly connection fees for Electricity in the $100+ range for many Americans.
I don't think there's any obligation for people's financial trickery to be sustainable. Like, a new power pole costs (say) $1000 regardless of how many watts are going through the wires attached to it. Someone has to pay the person that cut down the tree and hauled it to its final location money. That they loan you money on the infrastructure and you repay through using electricity isn't the actual cost model, it's just a pricing model people are OK with. When it stops working, the model will have to change.
I always laughed about the pricing structure of the business ISP that I worked at. We charged $1000 to install your service, then $1000 per month (without a contract). This was a financial game; we would lose money if you cancelled after your first month. I always thought the pricing should be $15,000 to install, and then $5 per month. That's closer to what the actual costs are. But instead of you going to the bank to get a loan to pay the $15,000, we hid that for you. It made more people sign up, and we had a better source of funding than bank loans. But, at the end of the day, we would have been out of business if a bunch of people signed up and didn't pay. If that happened, I imagine the pricing would have changed to reflect actual costs.
Comcast quoted rates in this range for installations in areas near Palo Alto. IIRC my friend was quoted $20k for the installation. She might have gone for it if they'd charged $5/mo after that, but of course Comcast wouldn't be so kind. Last I heard, she was still on AT&T copper. Hopefully Starlink will be able to help people like this, who are just outside the reach of existing wired internet.
> Like, a new power pole costs (say) $1000 regardless of how many watts are going through the wires attached to it. Someone has to pay the person that cut down the tree and hauled it to its final location money.
That pole is carrying the power for, say, 100 people.
Half of them use a below-average amount of electricity. If you stick them with a $100/month fixed fee, they don't need a large solar/battery system to get off the grid entirely, so you've made that economical and that's what they do.
Now you have the same number of poles and half as many customers, so the fixed fee rises to $200/month, and more customers do the same thing. This is not going to a great place.
Meanwhile there is a rural road somewhere that only has two things on it. One is a large commercial operation and the other is somebody's house. Putting up poles along that road is going to cost $100,000, but the commercial operation is content to pay the entire amount because their alternative is buying land somewhere that it costs significantly more than $100,000 more. The house on the same road is not content to pay half of that and will just use their $50,000 to install a solar/battery system and have quite a bit left over, even though a model where they only pay for usage would get them to sign up, and the power company is installing the poles either way.
The problem we're looking at is that if you charge a fixed fee for a grid connection, low users opt out of the grid, and then the fixed fee goes up and creates a new set of low users. But if you charge for distribution per kWh, everybody installs local solar generation because it's cheaper than any generation method that has a significant distribution fee as part of the cost per kWh, which in turn raises the distribution component of the price per kWh even more. Under the first option, a large proportion of rural and suburban customers aren't going to want a grid connection at all. Under the second option, they'll take the grid connection but then only use it if local generation isn't available (i.e. it's cloudy) and the grid price per kWh at those times will be quite high. But that's plausibly the better of the two alternatives, because a grid connection with a high price per kWh will generally be better than losing power at those times, or having enough local storage/generation to prevent that from ever happening even in rare circumstances.
A third option is to charge everyone the fixed fee for the power grid and force them to take a grid connection even if that isn't economical, but that's even worse. You've essentially created a head tax with no way to avoid it even if you can't afford it, because you can't cancel your service and you can't pay less by reducing consumption.
Your analysis is spot on. My main question is how viable is it to get off the grid entirely? I think that the number of people who will actually go off-grid and take the risk of outage is really small. The cost of going off-grid is a lot higher than you'd think, and the size of batteries needed to get through a week-long rainy spell is significant.
There is also a pole closer to the substation which is carrying the power for 5000 people.
Meanwhile if four of the eight people near your house decide to disconnect from the grid because the fixed fee is too high, you still have to cover the cost of that pole with half as many people, some of whom might then decide that the higher fixed fee is too much and disconnect too, etc.
If a customer is permitted to buy as much electricity as they want at a fixed price while also being able to sell as much as they can at a different time at a fixed price, it seems like there's an obvious subsidy happening anytime they sell electricity at other than when the wholesale price is the highest or buy other than when the wholesale price is lowest. (In areas with an excess of solar generation capacity, these distortions become quite large.)
(I'm still all for these subsidies on the balance of factors; we just shouldn't pretend that they're not subsidies.)
I guess you didn't actually click through to the links; they refer to windmills, solar panel pricing issues in SE Asia, and various other topics (I'm sure some links involve the CA govt attacking solar, but the first several didn't). Maybe next time you can post a couple links that you've actually read, instead of just giving the impression that there are scads of attacks at your fingertips?
It's probably academic, but if natural gas is that cheap, then I wonder about more thermodynamically-efficient uses of it.
The classic thing is cogeneration. It's a thermodynamic sin to create a large temperature difference (say, furnace combustion chamber vs. house) without running that heat through a heat engine. In the Nordic countries, in parts of Russia, and on some university campuses in the US, that's done with a "neighborhood power plant" and district heating (steam pipes). Heat engines get less efficient as they get smaller, but possibly a house-scale cogeneration setup could still make sense?
But I'm also now curious about something more interesting: In the same way that you can have, say, a propane powered refrigerator, is it also possible to have a natural gas powered heat pump? Suppose it's a cold winter day, and you're burning natural gas in a combustion chamber in an appliance in your basement. There are three temperature reservoirs: The outdoors, the house, and the combustion chamber, at temperatures T1 < T2 < T3, respectively. By harnessing heat flow (Q32) from the combustion chamber into the house, can additional heat (Q12) be pumped from the outdoors into the house? Then the house will get a total flow Q = Q32 + Q12.
From Q32, work
W = (1 - T2/T3) * Q32
is available. That can then be used to pump
Q12 = 1 / (1 - T1/T2) * W
= ((1 - T2/T3) / (1 - T1/T2)) * Q32
additional heat. And thus
Q = Q32 + Q12
= (1 + (1 - T2/T3) / (1 - T1/T2)) * Q32
= B(T1, T2, T3) * Q32 .
Here, B (a function of T1, T2, T3) is the coefficient by which the natural gas' energy is effectively multiplied, for heating purposes.
so letting T3 = 1,700 C = 1973.15 K, we get the slightly lower B(T1, T2, T3) = 6.58.
This is still fantastic.
This is also assuming a very cold day, which is when the system will have lower efficiency. If we instead assume T1 = 0 C = 273.15 K, and use the more conservative T3 = 1973.15 K assumption, then we get B(T1, T2, T3) = 12.4. That's huge.
So, assuming my math/modeling is right, a hypothetical heat-pump furnace could (using Carnot bounds) use around 1/6th - 1/12th the natural gas as a conventional one, even in a very cold place, if you keep all the other properties of the house (insulation, air exchange) constant.
Is there a reason heat pumps use electricity? I would have thought the same approach would work with gas - you only need to burn a fraction of the gas to drive the "fridge" backwards?
I think you are back to where you started. If it was cheaper to use gas to run a heat pump then everybody would just run generators in their houses off of gas instead of using electrical lines.
In MA this actually does work at first glance: a 23% efficient Generac 7171 is rated for 9kW at full output on natural gas, and uses 127 ft3/hr (1.37 therms). This is $0.30/kWh at $2/therm, compared to the $0.323/kWh I pay the power company. If you were doing this for real you'd put in the work to find something more efficient than this unit, which would then be enough to make up for the cost of the generator and the maintenance.
Except it's not legal to do this, and even if it were there'd be a lot of hassle.
I had found some things saying you were limited in how many hours per year you could run standby generators outside of emergencies [1] but possibly this only applies to larger systems? [2]
That has been proposed. Well the proposal was to run a small engine powering a generator, then you cool the engine to heat the house, while the electric is sold (or otherwise powers the house). However modern gas furnaces are > 90% efficient and it is hard to get an engine that efficient for heat (remember the engine will be running indoors so it needs to not fill the house with noise of CO). I think no matter how you look at it, you can't make this system more efficient than just using the furnace to generate heat without the engine.
> I think no matter how you look at it, you can't make this system more efficient than just using the furnace to generate heat without the engine.
I don't think that's right: look at micro-CHP (Combined Heat and Power) systems: they run an engine to generate electricity, and then capture the heat for heating. I don't think you can get them for residential in the US though.
Instead it everyone rubbing their own little power plant. Economies of scale suggests that’s it probably cheaper to centralize that electricity generation in a highly efficient large plant, which brings us back to exactly what we have been found got that 100 years
What I had in mind was that heating and cooling using an air-conditioner, a fridge or a "heat pump" is fundamentally the same thing, and electricity is just one way of driving it. Ultimately you have a gas that you compress to release heat (outside for AC, inside for heat pump), which then expands (inside for A/C, outside for a heat pump). The compressor can run off a pedal bike for all it cares.
There are second order effects from natural gas use in an actual furnace that aren't taken into account in price of energy comparisons. A furnace has to either
1) exhaust out air initially drawn from the house which must be replaced by cold outdoor air coming into the house (this requires more heating of the house)
2) take in fresh cold air for combustion and exhaust that (which requires extra energy to heat up the cold air)
All modern furnaces I've seen take #2 - use air from outside. Despite that they can get to 99% efficient. It doesn't take much energy to heat up that cold air.
How could it not take much energy to heat up cold air? That plus blowing air is the entirety of what goes on in a forced air ventilation system.
The efficiency rating of a gas furnace assumes the incoming air temperature is close to the desired temperature of the house- that's why it is negligible in the artificial efficiency ratings. If the incoming air is below freezing the efficiency must be different. I wish I could find a study that properly quantified this.
My experience in the US at least is that its not uncommon for the furnace air intake to draw air from inside the house (my last two homes in PNW as one example).
That used to be very common in the US, and there are a lot of old systems still working. However every new furnace I've seen is installed to use outside air. Using outside air needs $100 more in parts and labor and it prevents air balance issues in modern well sealed houses.
The furnace my parents (who live in Ohio) installed 10+ years ago uses outside air for combustion, not conditioned inside air. As it's older, it's not got a 99 AFUE, but it's high (I think in the low 90s).
That is a good point. City permits required us to add vents to our furnace enclosure, which would draw combustion air from the conditioned space, even though it was previously drawing from the attic. I just blocked the vents.
Natural gas prices have gone through the roof in CA, people with old gas furnaces are the hardest hit in winter. We saved quite a bit when we upgraded to a heat pump.
Solar isn't a useful source of energy for heating in California, since the demand is almost entirely during winter mornings/evenings where the sun is down.
Solar with Battery storage is a very useful source for heating energy, even in the coldest climates in CA. Even in the mountains where it drops below freezing at night, most places it's still sunny a lot more than the US average during the day. Most Battery setups I know of target a 4 day stretch of cloud cover for storage capacity, so it is certainly an option.
Where I live at 7000 feet, we have so much sunshine, even in winter, solar is a very viable option. Legislation removing people's ability to recoup the costs is the only reason it's not in every house in the city. The only option left is a much more costly battery setup.
Where I live, at 6200 feet, we have oodles of sunshine. Even so, the air-source heat pumps in my old adobe use 3x more than we generate (which in turn is 3x more than we need during the summer). No (sane, residential) battery system can handle this.
Which mostly goes to show the value and necessity for serious insulation and air-sealing, which this house does not have. Nevertheless, the point about batteries remains.
California (and everywhere else) could make solar a lot more useful by making electricity cheaper from 10am to 3pm. If heat pumps and electric water heaters were set up to run more when the sun is out, it would noticeably decrease the evening spike in electricity demand.
Solar takes demand out of the entire pie. So less natural gas needed during peak hours. Also move some of that excess in to energy storage and you can cover during that time in the morning.
Utilities cost excesses in California are largely PG&E paying for its liability for causing wildfires in places where people probably shouldn’t live anyway.
For example Silicon Valley Power which serves Santa Clara (or something like that) has rates that are literally half as much as PG&E.
In Minnesota I’m paying for Xcel Energy’s mistakes in Texas.
California has wildfires, and climate change has made them worse. Then the people who built their houses in a silly place prone to wildfires watch them burn down. This is becoming a problem as the frequency which with it happens increases, because it can bankrupt fire insurance companies (who then can't pay claims), or make fire insurance there unaffordable and then people don't buy it, their house burns down, and you have angry constituents.
The political solution to this is to put the liability on the power company whenever possible, even though it isn't really their fault. The fire is caused by dry conditions and that wood is going up the first time there is any kind of flame anywhere near it. If it wasn't PG&E it would have been a lightning strike or something else. Having the fires less often can actually make them worse.
But the power company is a deep pocket, so if there is any way to pin the fire on them, that's what everybody wants to do, so that the uninsured people in the fire zone can collect from someone and the currently insured people who are still there don't become unable to afford fire insurance.
Then the power company raises rates on everybody in their service area, including people who don't live in high fire risk areas, because the government has them acting as the fire insurance company, but now you can't cancel your "fire insurance" without turning off your electricity and it also has to be paid by people who didn't build their house in a silly place.
> The political solution to this is to put the liability on the power company whenever possible, even though it isn't really their fault.
PG&E's liability for wildfire-related damages, blowing up San Bruno, etc., is not a political decision of where to place blame for climate-change effects, it is regular civil liability (and in some cases criminal) for damage provably attributable to acts or culpable omissions by the firm.
There is some liability on the state and voters for anti burn policy. However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment.
If homes are uninsurable, then they shouldn't be. That should only be an issue for an insurer and home owner to work out.
If people want to live somewhere uninsurable, or with more expensive power, I have no issue whatsoever, and won't call them silly. That is their perogitive and values. I view it the same way as if someone wants to base jump, or eat a $500 steak. I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it
> However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment.
Mitigating the risk is pointless. Wildfires are a natural occurrence in California. The ignition source is irrelevant. The fire is happening, you can't stop it.
> I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it
But that's exactly what they expect you to do. Their houses are in a tinder box. There is some absurdly high probability that they'll burn. And then they're going to want to play the sympathetic victim who has just lost everything in a fire and go to the government and try to get someone else (i.e. you, via PG&E) to pay for the consequences of their choices.
The traditional way of doing this is to make the insurance pay, but they didn't have insurance because the high risk was known in advance which made the insurance unaffordable. When that's not available, the lawyers have to find someone else to sue, and in this case it's the power company.
Ignition source matters, because frequency happens. Take the camp fire. If not for PG&E, 85 people would be alive, and 16 billion in damages would be averted.
>But that's exactly what they expect you to do. Their houses are in a tinder box. There is some absurdly high probability that they'll burn.
I dont know what you think is "high probability", but it doesnt really matter. The point is that it should be between them and the power company.
I think you have a pretty distorted view of reality. PGE didnt and doesn't get sued for natural wildfires, only what they cause.
> Ignition source matters, because frequency happens.
But more frequent, smaller fires are actually better. Otherwise dead wood accumulates and then the next fire spreads faster and is harder to contain.
> Take the camp fire. If not for PG&E, 85 people would be alive, and 16 billion in damages would be averted.
And then an even worse fire would have happened later.
> The point is that it should be between them and the power company.
But the power company isn't raising rates for customers in high fire risk areas, they're raising rates for everyone. Otherwise the people in high risk areas would all cancel their electrical service because they couldn't afford it, but the power company would still have to maintain lines there because it's in their service area.
> PGE didnt and doesn't get sued for natural wildfires, only what they cause.
They're all natural wildfires. They're caused by dead wood and dry conditions.
It's not just about causing wildfires in places where people shouldn't live, but causing wildfires in places that no people actually live, but these places happen to be between other places where people live.
I don't know if the experience of a Brit with a roof covered in solar panels applies in California, but: during months when you want to run the heat pump, your solar won't be producing shit.
It will have a lower price but not a lower cost. At this point we can't wait for price efficiency we have to pay whatever dollar amount to avoid the catastrophic human costs of burning fossil fuels.
i'm not sure if you're serious, but the california public utilities commision's public advocates office (what a mouthful) describes california's rates as generally higher than most of the nation[0], with southern california's rates being highest (with both increasing).
you can see, for instance san diego's rates [1] which are $0.38/kWh in the winter and $0.48/kWh in the summer. for context, this means if i pay 11 dollars in electricity generation (because i'm part of a municipal electric generation coop), i'm still paying $36 for distribution/transmission/etc, which is $47 for 106kWh used or ~$.44/kWh which is roughly what electrify america charges ($.48/kWh) when i go to 'fill up my car.' as far as i can tell from talking to people, this is is more than most people anywhere in the country (including hawaii) pay for their electricity.
It's a bit more nuanced than that (and PG&E deliberately makes their bills difficult to read). In Oakland for the baseline tier on the time of use plan:
Peak is $0.51536 (delivery) - $0.10556 (baseline credit) + $0.16225 (generation via East Bay Community Energy / Ava) or just over of $0.57 per kWh.
Off-peak is $0.48701 - $0.10556 - $0.13772 or just shy of $0.52/kWh.
Add that baseline credit back in for when you reach tier 2 (currently 12.9 kWh/day for my apartment which factors in winter usage and electric heat). I have about 3.5 kW of baseboard heaters (and use 2.75 kW at most). Whatever the duty cycle is to keep the apartment at 60°F 24x7 is well more than 12.9 kWh so obviously I don't do that anymore. Rates are set to go up again in March or April.
Gas is $2.43888/therm with tier 2 kicking in at 6.72 therms/month and minimum charge of $0.13151/day.
If California is serious about this, they need to reign in the utilities to reduce prices and or stop the attacks on solar installation.