# Massachusetts passes sweeping climate law



## begreen (Sep 6, 2022)

This new bill covers a lot of territory from EV mandates and incentives, to big changes in renewable grid energy contracts, to major infrastructure changes.  It will be interesting to see if this becomes a model for other states the way the state health insurance plan became a model for the Affordable Care Act.









						Massachusetts Enacts A Climate Law Of Its Own
					

Massachusetts has enacted a new law that will bring more renewable energy and electric vehicles to its residents.




					cleantechnica.com


----------



## Ashful (Sep 6, 2022)

Nice!  Good for them.

In my distopian future, muscle cars are treated like fur coats, with owners afraid to take them out among the general public.


----------



## begreen (Sep 6, 2022)

No worries, Dodge will continue to make toys for boys that excite. Actually the Charger is a good name for an EV. 


			DODGE EV will make “a noise you can’t imagine” | Dodge Developments


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 6, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Nice!  Good for them.
> 
> In my distopian future, muscle cars are treated like fur coats, with owners afraid to take them out among the general public.


Kind of like early 70's/60's and older cars are now, especially rare big block Mopars. There are loads of classic cars that only come out for shows. A friend's family has a tri-5 Chevy and a big block bubble top Impala, they are rarely driven. I doubt most commuter cars will have the same following.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 6, 2022)

Lol, Freudian typo in that piece: 

"Used cars with infernal combustion engines .."


----------



## begreen (Sep 6, 2022)

Saw that, pretty sure it was intentional.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 6, 2022)

begreen said:


> No worries, Dodge will continue to make toys for boys that excite. Actually the Charger is a good name for an EV.
> 
> 
> DODGE EV will make “a noise you can’t imagine” | Dodge Developments


Yeah, saw a long write up on them last week.  Not sure what to think of Dodge adding a sound system for fake exhaust noise.  Seems to me like an identity crisis.  If you're going electric, go all in... don't try to make an electric car sound like a fake muscle car.  It just won't age well, IMO.

But one thing is for sure, the Hellcat EV is going to need to be mind-bending fast, lest it be called a failure.  Dodge has a curated an exhaust-sniffing fanbase that won't be easy to swing over to EV's, without it being something absolutely sublime.


----------



## Solarguy3500 (Sep 6, 2022)

Some good solar provisions in the bill as well.

It raises the system size that is exempt from the net metering cap allocation process from 10 kW to 25 kW AC. With so many people getting heat pumps, EVs, etc, that 10 kW limit was outdated. Now systems up to 25 kW AC will get almost the full retail value for net metering credits. Systems over 25 kW AC can get net metering credits worth 60% of retail rates, which still pencils out pretty good in most cases. These systems will now have an annual cash out at wholesale rate if they carry excess net metering credits beyond a year.

Eliminates in most cases an annoying rule that has been around for years that said you could only have 1 net meter per parcel of land, the "Single Parcel Rule".

The wrinkle is that the DPU has to promulgate the new rules and the utilities have to update their interconnection tariffs, so it will likely be several months or a year before the solar provisions get implemented.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 7, 2022)

The problem is who pays for it?. Most of the current incentives are paid by the electrical consumers. Solar is great stuff in the right place, but many homes are unsuitable for it as they need an unobstructed view of the south. Renters, condo owners and members of HOA's are usually restricted on solar options and they tend to pay higher electric bills or indirectly the costs are passed on through the rent. Fees to subsidize the incentives are usually tied to usage and most studies I have seen is that the brunt of the fees are paid by lower income folks who tend to be in rental housing. 

I on occasion work with developers and their goal in life is find the loopholes and make money off them and there are most likely a lot of great loopholes to take advantage of. 

Another aspect is personal experience is that the grid in cities with a lot of underground infrastructure just can not be expanded very easilly to take on the extra load. 

It is disappointing that they excluded biomass power plants as renewable. They most likely used the flawed Manomet study to justify it. The reality was the reason for the study was to justify a NIMBY policy to keep new biomass power plants out of the state. The concept for a new method of selecting new power generation sources is also a great way for political influence to sneak into the process. Billions will be spent on new generation so it is a tempting target to try to lobby the process to grab the golden ring.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

Fascinating.

Things I noticed:
1. EV incentives are OK.  Both for purchasing new EVs (capped at $55k MSRP) and installing 4 (yawn) DCFCs on the Mass Pike.  How does the Mass Pike not already have DCFCs Massachusetts?  Oh yeah, I drove my 22 Bolt to Cape Cod this summer and there was ONE DCFC on the Cape.  In Hyannis.  I DCFC'ed a little longer on the mainland, skipped it and just plugged in my Bolt overnight at my rental house.

2. LOVE the 2025 ban on nat gas installs in new construction (with some exceptions for low income communities).  This the governor balked at (no surprise), but signed anyway.  This could ultimately be, hands down, the most impactful aspect of this bill.  The nat gas distribution network in the eastern cities (esp Boston and Philly) is ancient and SUPER leaky.   You can drive a methane sensor around town and detect methane EVERYWHERE. Obv a potent greenhouse gas.  And gas combustion indoors is the major indoor pollutant (other than smokers), so a big health win too.  I AM afraid that those crazy Yankees will just install more new heating oil units to compensate... I assume that is still legal , if not encouraged, LOL.  Watch this space.

3. Eliminate price caps for offshore wind, and take away the National Grid and Eversource role in bid selection.  Uh, OK.  The caps were put IN because in the aftermath of the decade long Cape Wind fiasco,  the next bidder paid off the government officials to ram through a contract that had a 30 year, $0.30/kWh contract price (plus inflation) without adequate public comment.  And got killed by a whistle-blower.  Yet more evidence of deep corruption around electricity pricing in New England.  Now that other states are writing contracts for offshore wind with reasonable prices per kWh, maybe Massachusetts can finally play catch up... with its amazing resource.  Read the fine print on those contracts yankees... don't get burned.

4.  Solar:  Meh.  I am not a big fan of rooftop solar in a HCOL built environment.  If it gets more farmers to put in bigger systems on their land, great.  Every sq foot of solar installed at top $$ on somebody's roof will eventually displace low cost solar installed by an investor or utility on a low cost site, 5-10 years from now, due to load mgmt issues.  I would've liked it better if it were a rooftop solar requirement in new construction (bc its cheaper), with some extra supports for low-income housing.  But I suppose that would exacerbate the housing shortage (and low-income housing shortage) up there.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 7, 2022)

So much talk of "the grid" not being up to the task, over the last two pages of the Green Room.  I'm not sure I buy it.  Peak demand per capita will continue to trend downward, and localized generation (eg. solar) will offer increasing offset to long-haul demand.  Smart charging of PEV's will continue to reduce peak-to-average demand ratio.  If anything, I see the severity of demand on the grid decreasing with regard to everything except heating and cooling, but even there, efficiencies are always improving.

Storage continues to be an issue, but that's nothing new.  Storage has been the issue since construction of the first nukes, more than a half century ago.  Solar, wind... they only augment an existing shortcoming.  PEV's may never completely fill that gap, but a forecast 160 million of them sure seem to have the potential to put a serious dent in that.



woodgeek said:


> I AM afraid that those crazy Yankees will just install more new heating oil units to compensate... I assume that is still legal , if not encouraged, LOL.  Watch this space.


I highly doubt it.  At least around here, every cheap McMansion and development house built for bottom dollar is heated and cooled by heat pump, only.  Some high-end homes still get oil, but last I checked, that made up something like only 6% of the new home market.

The higher cost of installing a separate hydronic oil-fired heating system, PLUS a now-obligatory ducted cooling system in a new home, is going to keep oil relegated to only those who care enough and can afford to avoid the misery of living under a heat pump in January.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 7, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Yeah, saw a long write up on them last week.  Not sure what to think of Dodge adding a sound system for fake exhaust noise.  Seems to me like an identity crisis.  If you're going electric, go all in... don't try to make an electric car sound like a fake muscle car.  It just won't age well, IMO.
> 
> But one thing is for sure, the Hellcat EV is going to need to be mind-bending fast, lest it be called a failure.  Dodge has a curated an exhaust-sniffing fanbase that won't be easy to swing over to EV's, without it being something absolutely sublime.


Turns out customers like the noise. Many ICE cars have been pumping synthetic or real engine noises into the cabin for years now. Even the old Mustang GT had a pipe coming off the intake so you could hear some induction noise in the cab. Rolls, and their parent company BMW, had to add a lot of synthetic engine noises into their larger cars because people found them to be "disconcertingly quiet" or something like that. Seriously, tons of cars have added sound. I'm personally not a fan myself and find it a bit weird and disingenuous, but it's here to stay.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I highly doubt it. At least around here, every cheap McMansion and development house built for bottom dollar is heated and cooled by heat pump, only. Some high-end homes still get oil, but last I checked, that made up something like only 6% of the new home market.


As a former New Englander, I would beg to differ.  The high prices of kWh and gas therms in New England has kept heating oil usage up there quite popular.  Oil is 6% of new installs nationwide, but last time I checked the EIA, nearly all of them were in New England.

The Mid-Atlantic (our area) also had a lot of oil for decades (it was how my whole neighborhood was set up in 1960, and why I don't have a gas main to connect to). A lot of oil systems have been ripped out over the last 15 years, and rarely applied to new construction.  Not so true further north, due to the much higher costs of alternatives.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 7, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Oil is 6% of new installs, but I think nearly all of them are in New England, where the % is shockingly high.


Ah...  the devil is in the details!  I knew the broad stat's, but wasn't aware of the weighting toward NE.

Here, only those of us "lucky" enough to have an older home have oil heating, the reason most often cited is cost.  It's just cheaper for builders to install a single air-source heat pump, with most folks buying primarily on dollars per square foot and kitchen surface materials, ignoring the quality and function of most mechanical systems.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 7, 2022)

They are not banning natural gas, just residential. I am hopefully commissioning a new natural gas CHP tomorrow. Its going to be around a long time. If have been involved with 6 CHP plants in Mass. Man y of the hospitals and the big factories in mass have CHP.   The nat gas companies really do not want residential unless its on an existing supply line and they spend the bare minimum to maintain them, they want commercial and institutional. I did one project up in central mass where the utility needed to replace a few miles of pipe to support it. There is also something called Renewable Natural Gas which will use the existing natural gas infrastructure. Its basically landfill gas that is cleaned up and injected into the natural gas system.


----------



## GrumpyDad (Sep 7, 2022)

begreen said:


> This new bill covers a lot of territory from EV mandates and incentives, to big changes in renewable grid energy contracts, to major infrastructure changes.  It will be interesting to see if this becomes a model for other states the way the state health insurance plan became a model for the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As someone that has worked in the solar field for awhile early on, I can say that as homer said 'solar is a pipe dream'.  You really need a big solar array to produce energy worth mentioning.  It is still very costly, and it is costly to maintain.  It is an option though, if the effort is put into it to make it more affordable, and to advance the tech more.  MASS doesnt exactly get a ton of sun.  Wind is another thought, but you REALLY need to consider how big of a farm you need to power a small town.  It's alot.  

Fossil fuels are the absolute most affordable and efficient means of energy today.  There's no doubt.

Americans have an insatiable need for energy.  There only ONE way to really solve that right now and in the immediate 20-30 years, and that's nuclear power.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Here, only those of us "lucky" enough to have an older home have oil heating, the reason most often cited is cost.  It's just cheaper for builders to install a single air-source heat pump, with most folks buying primarily on dollars per square foot and kitchen surface materials, ignoring the quality and function of most mechanical systems.



And of course, they install the cheapest, code-compliant, potentially undersized and single speed heat pumps they can.  Perpetuating the myth that heat pumps are expensive and miserable in winter!


----------



## Ashful (Sep 7, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> And of course, they install the cheapest, code-compliant, potentially undersized and single speed heat pumps they can.  Perpetuating the myth that heat pumps are expensive and miserable in winter!


I wanted to like this post, but cannot, as I've never seen any evidence that commonly-deployed heat pumps are anything but expensive and miserable in the dead of winter.  If there's an exception to this rule, it's rare, at least in this part of the country.

Moreover, if there is an exception to this rule, what’s being commonly used by builders today should be legislated out if existence.


----------



## begreen (Sep 7, 2022)

The operative word is "commonly deployed". Common construction by many spec contractors has lots of flaws including inadequate insulation, poor sealing, cheap windows, cheap ZC fireplaces, etc. Add a cheap heat pump system to this and yes, you have a poor setup. Just as poor-performing HP units should not be used, so shouldn't these construction practices.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 7, 2022)

I wonder what NC will do.  Not much is my guess.  

Really all of this incentive without changing code is kind of missing huge opportunities.  Really we need to push a green update to the building code. Remember anyone can build “ above” the code. It really represents the bare minimum of acceptable.


----------



## semipro (Sep 7, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> Turns out customers like the noise. Many ICE cars have been pumping synthetic or real engine noises into the cabin for years now. Even the old Mustang GT had a pipe coming off the intake so you could hear some induction noise in the cab. Rolls, and their parent company BMW, had to add a lot of synthetic engine noises into their larger cars because people found them to be "disconcertingly quiet" or something like that. Seriously, tons of cars have added sound. I'm personally not a fan myself and find it a bit weird and disingenuous, but it's here to stay.


As someone who grew up enamored with the sound of a high-revving ICE I can say now that I've really grown to appreciate the electronic whine that EV power electronics make as long as it's accompanied by some butt-clenching acceleration.

Some of the noises made externally by EVs are mandated for safety reasons.  Silent cars in parking lots are a hazard.  
We hit a deer in our Leaf EV a few weeks back and I can't help but wonder if it might have been avoided if I was driving a noisier car.


----------



## semipro (Sep 7, 2022)

Ashful said:


> So much talk of "the grid" not being up to the task, over the last two pages of the Green Room. I'm not sure I buy it. Peak demand per capita will continue to trend downward, and localized generation (eg. solar) will offer increasing offset to long-haul demand. Smart charging of PEV's will continue to reduce peak-to-average demand ratio. If anything, I see the severity of demand on the grid decreasing with regard to everything except heating and cooling, but even there, efficiencies are always improving.


I was at a conference and heard a guy from the Rocky Mountain Institute talk about a turnpike travel plaza fuel station in either Michigan or Minnesota (I don't recall which).   IIRC there were 10 diesel and 14 gasoline dispensers at the site.  They calculated how much energy was transferred via those pumps daily and calculated the impact of total conversion to electric vehicles.   The amount of electrical power required for that one fueling plaza was more than the total capacity of the local electric utility that served the site. 

Now, I'm skeptical of this story.  The data may have been cherry-picked.  The grid may have been a very small local co-op. Or, maybe I just heard things wrong.  Still, it left me with doubts about whether we weren't getting ahead of ourselves with vehicle electrification.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

semipro said:


> I was at a conference and heard a guy from the Rocky Mountain Institute talk about a turnpike travel plaza fuel station in either Michigan or Minnesota (I don't recall which).   IIRC there were 10 diesel and 14 gasoline dispensers at the site.  They calculated how much energy was transferred via those pumps daily and calculated the impact of total conversion to electric vehicles.   The amount of electrical power required for that one fueling plaza was more than the total capacity of the local electric utility that served the site.
> 
> Now, I'm skeptical of this story.  The data may have been cherry-picked.  The grid may have been a very small local co-op. Or, maybe I just heard things wrong.  Still, it left me with doubts about whether we weren't getting ahead of ourselves with vehicle electrification.



I don't doubt it.  Its just a misleading stat.  90% of people's charging is on L2.  And only 10% is on the turnpike.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 7, 2022)

But if the cars getting gasoline there are 90 pct local, the local utility won't be able to do it (whether it is at a "gas station" or distributed over the neighborhoods)?


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> But if the cars getting gasoline there are 90 pct local, the local utility won't be able to do it (whether it is at a "gas station" or distributed over the neighborhoods)?



There is also a time factor not being accounted for.  In reality those pumps are not all pumping at 100% of the time.  Its sized for peak gas demand.

When you do the math, the extra energy load on the grid from switching to EVs is about 25%.  And if charging is done during off peak times, then the existing equipment can handle and distribute it (roughly) and the utility makes 25% more money.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 7, 2022)

I was surprised by that number of 25%, but I get the same. (Since I googled, I thought to not let that go to waste).

If I do the math using google data, I get this:
-we use 135 billion gallons of gasoline a year in the US (www.eia.gov)
-a gallon of gasoline is 120000 BTU
-that equates to 135E9 * 120E3 = 1.6E16 BTUs in energy from gasoline. 
-Using 3412 BTU for a kWh, this equates to 4.7E12kWh.

Googling the total amount of kWhs that the US uses in electricity per year as
3.9E12 kWh. (United Nations statistics division, per google).

That is indeed about 21%.

Adding 25% load to a grid that sometimes already has capacity issues indeed depends a lot on the timing of when that's added. Ideally it'll fill the valleys in the variable load curve during a 24 hr period. 

I wonder how much the people will listen to "pls charge at night only", because if they don't, there'll be much more brown-outs.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> I was surprised by that number of 25%, but I get the same. (Since I googled, I thought to not let that go to waste).
> 
> If I do the math using google data, I get this:
> -we use 135 billion gallons of gasoline a year in the US (www.eia.gov)
> ...


Most people are at work all day, so I don't think it will be a big ask.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 7, 2022)

The largest load on the grid is between 4-9 pm (at least in warmer climates), precisely when people come home from work with an empty battery...


----------



## Ashful (Sep 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> Adding 25% load to a grid that sometimes already has capacity issues indeed depends a lot on the timing of when that's added.


Let's also remember that the average age of a vehicle on America's roads was 11 years, before the pandemic.  I fully expect the new stat to be noticeably higher, based on the number of people who have transitioned away from a daily commute, in various forms.

In any case, that means that even if 100% of new vehicle sales were EV's (they're not... by a long shot), it will be at least years to see a 50% change in that 25% load... or 12.5%.  Plenty of time to adjust to any new demand, as it develops.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> The largest load on the grid is between 4-9 pm (at least in warmer climates), precisely when people come home from work with an empty battery...


I think that programming a charger to kick on at 2am is a pretty low technical bar for auto manufacturers to leap.  Heck, even my grandparents had timers on their lights and sprinklers, circa WW2.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 7, 2022)

The local utility has told our town that there is 2 million in local distribution upgrades before a supercharger station could be installed. Our town has 3 run of the river hydro electric dams and the region is a net renewable producer (so much that we can not export it.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 7, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I think that programming a charger to kick on at 2am is a pretty low technical bar for auto manufacturers to leap.  Heck, even my grandparents had timers on their lights and sprinklers, circa WW2.


And yet that doesn't seem to be used consistently as of now, despite being technically easy. (See CA.)
It would make sense any day to charge after midnight, even when it's not needed as last week in CA. But evidently that's not how people are operating.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> I was surprised by that number of 25%, but I get the same. (Since I googled, I thought to not let that go to waste).
> 
> If I do the math using google data, I get this:
> -we use 135 billion gallons of gasoline a year in the US (www.eia.gov)
> ...



You forgot that EV drive trains are 3X as efficient (80% versus 20-25%), so your numbers imply 5-6%.  You are comparing primary energy, not motive energy.

What's the issue... the 25% figure is global, not US.  My guess is the US grid is higher kWh per capita, relative to our gasoline usage, than the global figure.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I think that programming a charger to kick on at 2am is a pretty low technical bar for auto manufacturers to leap.  Heck, even my grandparents had timers on their lights and sprinklers, circa WW2.



Dudes, most EVs already have this.  The 'timer' in my car works back from when I want it to be done, and is geofenced to my garage.


----------



## begreen (Sep 7, 2022)

Yes, both the Gen 1 and Gen 2 Volts have this feature.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 7, 2022)

I'd be surprised by that; the US drives sooooo much, as compared to most of the worlds population.



What this means is that the US uses even more kWhs per Capita. And that is true, if I compare with households in the old country in Europe.


Regarding the timer, evidently people are not using this to charge, see CAs request last week. That may be a human-machine interaction issue (is it accessible, easy, etc.)


----------



## begreen (Sep 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> Regarding the timer, evidently people are not using this to charge, see CAs request last week. That may be a human-machine interaction issue (is it accessible, easy, etc.)


Yes, it probably is a lack of reading the manual. Common issue these days. Chevy has made it pretty easy.


----------



## begreen (Sep 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> I'd be surprised by that; the US drives sooooo much, as compared to most of the worlds population.


We've had generations of promotion for the open road. The US is way behind the world in building high-speed rail which could carry a lot of people instead of cars. I know we'd use it to visit Vancouver or Portland.


----------



## FramerJ (Sep 7, 2022)

begreen said:


> The operative word is "commonly deployed". Common construction by many spec contractors has lots of flaws including inadequate insulation, poor sealing, cheap windows, cheap ZC fireplaces, etc. Add a cheap heat pump system to this and yes, you have a poor setup. Just as poor-performing HP units should not be used, so shouldn't these construction practices.


Yep mostly cheap features are used in new homes and yet the cost of a house keeps going up.  What will installing (or mandating that they are to be installed by code) items such as geothermal heat pumps, rooftop solar, open cell foam insulation, good windows, ERVs, etc. do to the cost?  Most people just want granite countertops, huge walk-in closets, huge showers w multiple heads and 3 car garages and still park their 60K car outside.  One thing I don't see mentioned very much is the SIZE of the houses we are trying to heat and cool.  Maybe that's part of the problem too.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 7, 2022)

Size: yes, very much so.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

The US also has far more square footage of retail space per capita than any other country, which is a huge power hog.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> Regarding the timer, evidently people are not using this to charge, see CAs request last week. That may be a human-machine interaction issue (is it accessible, easy, etc.)



The utility request is hardly evidence.  CA has widely used TOU discounts and high retail costs per kWh.  The EV fora talk about TOU charging extensively.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 7, 2022)

FramerJ said:


> Yep mostly cheap features are used in new homes and yet the cost of a house keeps going up.  What will installing (or mandating that they are to be installed by code) items such as geothermal heat pumps, rooftop solar, open cell foam insulation, good windows, ERVs, etc. do to the cost?


Nearly all of the energy codes and efficient appliance mandates are tested against a lower total cost of ownership basis, on a reasonable time horizon.


----------



## FramerJ (Sep 7, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Nearly all of the energy codes and efficient appliance mandates are tested against a lower total cost of ownership basis, on a reasonable time horizon.


You are way, way more intelligent then I am so I tend to believe (or try to understand) what you are saying.  I just know that down on the micro level, if the city of Kansas City were to adopt an energy code that requires all exterior walls are to be 2x6, not the usual 2x4, me being a framing carpenter, I will be passing the cost of extra labor onto the builder.   The builder will then pass that cost, along with the additional material costs onto the buyer.   Also, FWIW, there is a huuuuge cost difference between builder grade windows (that meet the minimum energy star requirements) and actual energy efficient windows.  Somebody has to pay for these things.  

Im not saying that I am against these things, far from it.  I would love to have a geothermal heat pump for instance-- I would just never get the ROI.  I want to be energy efficient and I think most people do, but I also need to be financially efficient.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 7, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> The utility request is hardly evidence.  CA has widely used TOU discounts and high retail costs per kWh.  The EV fora talk about TOU charging extensively.


And yet they had to ask. (They could simply have jacked up the price when using tou billing...)


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 7, 2022)

I'm also betting the utilities put out the message preemptively, before there was an issue. Now people will probably just get into the habit of charging the car while they sleep. Especially if there is a monetary incentive.


----------



## begreen (Sep 7, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> Size: yes, very much so.


And a lot of waste space in the form of cathedral ceilings and along with them excess glazing.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 7, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Nearly all of the energy codes and efficient appliance mandates are tested against a lower total cost of ownership basis, on a reasonable time horizon.


As I was noticing my three under-counter garage refrigerators are starting to cycle more frequently (all three installed new ca.2015), I was thinking about this, with regard more to total environmental impact... if such a thing could be easily quantified.  It's not unrelated to this thread, as by mandating reductions in the amount of refrigerant used, they have:

1.  Decreased the number of years over which the appliance operates efficiently, and increased the number of years in which it will be inefficiently operating in a critically-low refrigerant charge state.

2.  Decreased the temperature range at which efficient operation is achieved, increasing the days and nights when it will be operating inefficiently, if installed anywhere outside a home kept near 70F all day/night.

3.  Decreased the overall lifespan of the product, causing each of us to landfill them 3x to 8x faster than our parents.

4.  Increased manufacturing and transportation energy usage and pollution, due to increased replacement and disposal frequency.

I could go on... but at some point, you need to wonder if perhaps a few ounces more refrigerant is less harmful to the environment, than the solution mandated today.


----------



## begreen (Sep 7, 2022)

Sounds like maybe they were not made for efficiency. Our 2012 energy star GE refrig is doing great. FWIW, our parents didn't have 3 under the counter refrigerators in the garage.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 7, 2022)

begreen said:


> Sounds like maybe they were not made for efficiency. Our 2012 energy star GE refrig is doing great. FWIW, our parents didn't have 3 under the counter refrigerators in the garage.


I think you missed the point of the post, about mandates affecting the total energy usage over the lifetime of a product, but they are all energy star certified.

And FWIW, my parents had a huge old 1953 GE refrigerator in the garage, still running there when we sold the house in 1999, and very likely still running in that same garage today.  Next to that, was a similarly-ancient freezer chest into which you could pack a half steer or up to three deer, just like every other house in the neighborhood.  They surely pulled 10x the power of my three little under-counter collegiate-sized cabinets.

By what measure is your 2012 unit "doing great"?  Have you actually monitored its energy usage over time?


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 8, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> There is also a time factor not being accounted for.  In reality those pumps are not all pumping at 100% of the time.  Its sized for peak gas demand.
> 
> When you do the math, the extra energy load on the grid from switching to EVs is about 25%.  And if charging is done during off peak times, then the existing equipment can handle and distribute it (roughly) and the utility makes 25% more money.


And probably not taking into account the waisted energy that was pumped into the tank just to be exhausted as heat.  I generally could see how the local grid (that probably is the fact that the station is supplied by limited single phase.  I’ll have to look at my local convenience store.  I bet it’s 3 phase. 


stoveliker said:


> I was surprised by that number of 25%, but I get the same. (Since I googled, I thought to not let that go to waste).
> 
> If I do the math using google data, I get this:
> -we use 135 billion gallons of gasoline a year in the US (www.eia.gov)
> ...


That estimate does not account for the in efficiency gain if BEVs.  But yeah that’s in the ballpark.  I imagine time if use billing will become more financially rewarding or the flat rate structure costs will increase substantially to promote charging at night..   I can imagine special rates for an outlet or device that is load interrupted but guarantees a certificate number kwhs per day.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 8, 2022)

Ashful said:


> As I was noticing my three under-counter garage refrigerators are starting to cycle more frequently (all three installed new ca.2015), I was thinking about this, with regard more to total environmental impact... if such a thing could be easily quantified.  It's not unrelated to this thread, as by mandating reductions in the amount of refrigerant used, they have:
> 
> 1.  Decreased the number of years over which the appliance operates efficiently, and increased the number of years in which it will be inefficiently operating in a critically-low refrigerant charge state.
> 
> ...


I have asked the question if older less efficient, but longer lasting appliances (think 50's-70's US made stuff) produces less carbon overall since you aren't replacing stuff every ten years or less. Most people don't keep any appliances for more than ten years, so it's not going to be easy data to quantify.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 8, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> I have asked the question if older less efficient, but longer lasting appliances (think 50's-70's US made stuff) produces less carbon overall since you aren't replacing stuff every ten years or less. Most people don't keep any appliances for more than ten years, so it's not going to be easy data to quantify.


I think you're onto something here, but aside from replacing too-frequently-failing refrigerators, I think you're making a wrong assumption that people don't keep appliances more than ten years.

I don't know many people who aren't frustrated about the (8 years?) typical lifespan of today's refrigerators, and I also don't know many who replace their range or oven more often than every 20 years.  My own kitchen range is 28 years old, still works and looks like the day it was installed.  We just finally replaced our 28 year dishwasher a few weeks ago, because the racks were rusting and because we never loved it, but I could have just as easily replaced the racks and kept it another decade if it did a better job of cleaning the dishes.

I see the refrigerator as the primary offender, and according to two refrigeration engineers I know, they both claim the problem is "too little refrigerant from the factory".  This causes two primary problems:

1.  When installed in a basement, garage, cabin, shop... anywhere the temperature might dip a bit below your kitchen, the small amount of available refrigerant pools in the coldest part of the circuit, away from the pump.  This causes the pump to dry cycle, cavitate, and fail.  Even before that, it turns your evaporator hot, causing your food to spoil, and people to (incorrectly) think the thing has permanently failed.

2.  With such a minimal charge, any small loss which is guaranteed to happen over time, has a proportionally larger impact on the remaining charge.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 8, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I think you're onto something here, but aside from replacing too-frequently-failing refrigerators, I think you're making a wrong assumption that people don't keep appliances more than ten years.
> 
> I don't know many people who aren't frustrated about the (8 years?) typical lifespan of today's refrigerators, and I also don't know many who replace their range or oven more often than every 20 years.  My own kitchen range is 28 years old, still works and looks like the day it was installed.  We just finally replaced our 28 year dishwasher a few weeks ago, because the racks were rusting and because we never loved it, but I could have just as easily replaced the racks and kept it another decade if it did a better job of cleaning the dishes.
> 
> ...


The median time for homeownership is thirteen years, up from ten years back in 2008. I would estimate that most homeowners are replacing one or more appliances between the time the home is bought and sold. Going by one of two landfills in my tiny county of 30k people, appliances are replaced frequently. Refrigerators are definitely the worst culprit and the one I had in mind, especially when compared to older stuff. When I was a kid in the 90's we had an old latching refrigerator from the 50's and it still worked.


----------



## GrumpyDad (Sep 8, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> The median time for homeownership is thirteen years, up from ten years back in 2008. I would estimate that most homeowners are replacing one or more appliances between the time the home is bought and sold. Going by one of two landfills in my tiny county of 30k people, appliances are replaced frequently. Refrigerators are definitely the worst culprit and the one I had in mind, especially when compared to older stuff. When I was a kid in the 90's we had an old latching refrigerator from the 50's and it still worked.


I have a sizable fleet of maytag and whirlpool products in 3 houses.  I would never wish owning them on my worst enemy.  I or the repair guy (while in warranty) have repaired something on every one of the products at least once.  The dishwasher for example has had 15 repairs, to which the repairs are doomed to return as there are design flaws.   Most of the repair issues Ive had to deal with are design flaws.
Refrigerator for example, there is a plastic boot that was under sized to allow water to flow to the drip pan.   Dust etc would get caught up in the tube, and it would freeze there (bottom freezer) behind the freezer.  Eventually ice would build up to the point that water would drip into the bottom of the freezer pull out drawer, and eventually that would fill up with enough ice that water would leak out onto our floors.   Eventually maytag released an updated model for this, but it was hard to find out about and even the local repair shop didnt know about it.  But I was thankful at least they fixed the issue even though it cost me money/time.

The next refrigerator, to save 15 cents, they put too short of cables running from the main unit through the door and up to the ice maker. After a little over a year the ice maker no longer heats the cubes to dump them, so you end up with a pile of frozen mess.  Another well know issue that most people just gave up on.  It's a time consuming fix that requires you to remove your door, lay it on the ground connected and vampire tap to diagnose which wire is no longer receiving the current as there are a few.  And which wire they shorted that week is a mystery. 

Microwave, trim plate doesnt seat properly (trim clip and hole are disproportionately sized) and if bumped will eventually work it's way down with open/door closures into the door frame opening.  There is no way around this other than to tape this up and over.  Looks awesome.

Washer, doesnt actually wash the clothes because half the time the water sensor is off.  Replaced with 'updated' water sensor that actually puts less water in.  Dryer that doesnt dry because of a design flaw requiring in depth cleaning internally to remove lint stuck to areas that it just shouldnt get stuck in.  Well known issue with this model.  

The list goes on and on.  

So if you have a maytag or whirlpool, prepare to contribute to the local landfills.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 8, 2022)

GrumpyDad said:


> Refrigerator for example, there is a plastic boot that was under sized to allow water to flow to the drip pan.   Dust etc would get caught up in the tube... entually that would fill up with enough ice that water would leak out onto our floors.


You and I had the same refrigerator.  And yes, mine is now in the landfill.  I tossed it, while still working perfectly fine in principle, after just 4 or 5 years of dealing with that stupid frustration and watching it constantly piss water all over my kitchen floor.

Before you ask, yes...  I played all the usual games with thawing the whole thing, hair dryer, turkey baster, wasting entire afternoons every third month, trying to clear the drain in that damn drip pan at the back of the ice box.  What a complete POS, and utter engineering failure.

But you are wrong on the cost savings.  It comes not from under-sizing a drip tube, but by short-cutting the R&D and testing phase, or otherwise conscious decisions that potential warranty repairs will cost less to fix than known problems.  Although I'm in industrial (not consumer) products, I have spent my life in engineering and product design.  These are the calculations made every day, against assumed impact to the brand name.


----------



## GrumpyDad (Sep 8, 2022)

Ashful said:


> You and I had the same refrigerator.  And yes, mine is now in the landfill.  I tossed it, while still working perfectly fine in principle, after just 4 or 5 years of dealing with that stupid frustration and watching it constantly piss water all over my kitchen floor.
> 
> Before you ask, yes...  I played all the usual games with thawing the whole thing, hair dryer, turkey baster, wasting entire afternoons every third month, trying to clear the drain in that damn drip pan at the back of the ice box.  What a complete POS, and utter engineering failure.
> 
> But you are wrong on the cost savings.  It comes not from under-sizing a drip tube, but by short-cutting the R&D and testing phase, or otherwise conscious decisions that potential warranty repairs will cost less to fix than known problems.  Although I'm in industrial (not consumer) products, I have spent my life in engineering and product design.  These are the calculations made every day, against assumed impact to the brand name.


ah, they eventually came out with a new boot for that.  It resolved it for me for good. 
Now the ice maker spewing/dumping ice all over the floor, was something else I had to retrofit.  
As well as the cheap plastic arm breaking as the arm gets stuck from water spray/calcification.
Not to mention, the lovely black mold that grows from the exit , well into the tube about 8' or so that I have to put bleach on pipe cleaners and scrub out every few months.  

Yes I do agree they cut on QA/design time.  I was in R&D and it's amazing how quickly an org can turn from super careful and cautious to haphazard ....get the next thing out....start on the next thing and the next thing.
BUT
I will tell you that in the moments Ive spoken to the Maytag repairman,...who I might add is a busy busy guy, he said that maytag/whirlpool are obviously focusing on the throw away world - and cannot compete by charging a ton more than the other guy.  He sees plastic, and cheap plastic, where metal used to be, thinner plastic, cheaper components like compressors, etc.  

AND maybe they know there is no competition really.  When you look to pay more for a dishwasher for example, and try to go a bit higher end - read the reviews.  People on there pissing and moaning about their 3k dishwasher, 2.5 stars out of 5 in the reviews...well heck, im not spending that kinda dough for problems I can get with maytag.

Sadly im having a better experience overall with Frigidaire now.


----------



## begreen (Sep 8, 2022)

Ashful said:


> By what measure is your 2012 unit "doing great"?  Have you actually monitored its energy usage over time?


Yes, had a kilo-watt on it when checking on load for the generator. It's still performing well. This is in part due to much better insulation in modern units than those of 20 yrs ago or more.


GrumpyDad said:


> When you look to pay more for a dishwasher for example, and try to go a bit higher end - read the reviews.


I did that for our dishwasher and found Bosch had the best track record at the time. Ours was installed in 2013. No problems, knock on wood. My SIL went by what looked good in her kitchen and got a Miele. It was out for repair twice in 3 yrs. I just saw a 2 yr old Miele washer on our Freecycle listing. Control board had burned out and they were giving it away. They should have stuck to vacuum cleaners which are very good.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 8, 2022)

FramerJ said:


> I just know that down on the micro level, if the city of Kansas City were to adopt an energy code that requires all exterior walls are to be 2x6, not the usual 2x4, me being a framing carpenter, I will be passing the cost of extra labor onto the builder.   The builder will then pass that cost, along with the additional material costs onto the buyer.   Also, FWIW, there is a huuuuge cost difference between builder grade windows (that meet the minimum energy star requirements) and actual energy efficient windows.  Somebody has to pay for these things.
> 
> Im not saying that I am against these things, far from it.  I would love to have a geothermal heat pump for instance-- I would just never get the ROI.  I want to be energy efficient and I think most people do, but I also need to be financially efficient.



I think we agree.  These codes aren't written with by politicians with some crazy green agenda.  They are written by engineers who are seeing how different choices pencil out, just as you say we should.  You don't think 2x6 framing pencils out in your climate.... and its not in the code.  You don't think geos pencil out in the climate, and its not in the code.

What IS in the code... energy star windows that you say are cheap!  You think those pencil out compared to the single pane windows that predate them (and that I had in my house)?  We probably agree that they DO.  And they're in the code.  And they are cheap bc they are code mandated and manufactured in huge numbers.

What about attic insulation... the code amount seem right to you?  Would leaving it off save money in the long run?

Bottom line: you seem to be making my case for me.  The existing code seems reasonable on a TCO basis.

There is a lot of $$$ green bling that gets sold to early adopters, but those code-compliant energy star windows in every new house are saving way more energy than some one guy dropping $40k to put a geo on his house.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 8, 2022)

begreen said:


> I did that for our dishwasher and found Bosch had the best track record at the time.


I tried to buy a new Bosch dishwasher earlier this summer, as I've also had (mostly) good luck with Bosch, in other appliances.  Unfortunately, they've been on perpetual back order since last December, pretty much everywhere I checked.  Some stores did get a big shipment of them in June, but it was only fulfilling backorders from last November and December (2021), with nothing left over for stock.  It seems Bosch has had trouble keeping up with demand for dishwashers, at least here in the northeast.

Our ultimate brand selection was governed almost entirely by availability, I think the unit I brought home was down around 8th or 9th on my sorted list of desired models.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 8, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> ...those code-compliant energy star windows in every new house are saving way more energy than some one guy dropping $40k to put a geo on his house.


It will be interesting to see how older windows are treated, in coming years.  We've likely all been through the routine of having to bring various items in old houses up to code, which have been fine for 100+ years, but now that we're touching them...

I brought a Flir camera home from work ten years ago, posted a bunch of photos here, if I recall.  The summary of that experiment is that my 250 and 300 year old windows radiate much less energy than my spendy 1995'ish double-pane Andersen 400's.  Not by a little, either, it was astounding how much better the older windows were.  The older windows benefitted from a 2" to 4" air gap between sash and storm, whereas the modern double-pane had only, what... 0.15" air gap?

Now, I also had a few old windows at the time without storm windows, as I was making some repairs.  It was clear how bad a 250 year old divided-lite glazed single pane window could be, without a storm window.  But that's an exceptional case around here, old windows without storms fall apart quickly, in our climate.

It'll be a shame to watch more old houses with beautiful original windows ruined by aggressive but senseless code, which in the case of windows, has as much potential to reduce as improve efficiency.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 8, 2022)

Ashful said:


> It will be interesting to see how older windows are treated, in coming years.  We've likely all been through the routine of having to bring various items in old houses up to code, which have been fine for 100+ years, but now that we're touching them...
> 
> I brought a Flir camera home from work ten years ago, posted a bunch of photos here, if I recall.  The summary of that experiment is that my 250 and 300 year old windows radiate much less energy than my spendy 1995'ish double-pane Andersen 400's.  Not by a little, either, it was astounding how much better the older windows were.  The older windows benefitted from a 2" to 4" air gap between sash and storm, whereas the modern double-pane had only, what... 0.15" air gap?
> 
> ...



I agree.  I did my own IR measurements.  My 1960 single-pane windows with 2010 low-E storms are running about R-3, or U=0.33, waay better than 90s double pane (before low-E tech).  And are in excellent condition.

I was not aware that code requirement would require you to rip out old windows.  What if they required you to have a storm?


----------



## FramerJ (Sep 8, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I think we agree.  These codes aren't written with by politicians with some crazy green agenda.  They are written by engineers who are seeing how different choices pencil out, just as you say we should.  You don't think 2x6 framing pencils out in your climate.... and its not in the code.  You don't think geos pencil out in the climate, and its not in the code.
> 
> What IS in the code... energy star windows that you say are cheap!  You think those pencil out compared to the single pane windows that predate them (and that I had in my house)?  We probably agree that they DO.  And they're in the code.  And they are cheap bc they are code mandated and manufactured in huge numbers.
> 
> ...


Im following you.  Excellent point about the windows. I was just meaning they are cheap quality.  But a cheap quality  energy star rated window is 10x better than the old single panes you and I grew up with.   I also agree about insulation.     To be clear, I dont have a problem adopting energy codes.   I wish they had energy codes when my house was built in 55.  I have no insulation in the walls.  All Im just saying is there is a cost. Upfront, which is added to the price of a house.  I know and you know whats saves money in the long run but IMO most people when buying a house want the largest they can get, with the most bells and whistles they can get.  Insulation is not even a thought.  Its not sexy.  Ive sat with people wanting a house built and when given the choice between batt insulation and spray foam, most decline the foam.  They would rather spend that money on other upgrades, depending on budget.  Obviously, if its code, the choice is made for them but the price of the house more than likely will reflect that.   I think a lot of people have trouble equating energy savings to dollar savings, especially if its something that takes years to get your money back.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 8, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I agree.  I did my own IR measurements.  My 1960 single-pane windows with 2010 low-E storms are running about R-3, or U=0.33, waay better than 90s double pane (before low-E tech).  And are in excellent condition.
> 
> I was not aware that code requirement would require you to rip out old windows.  What if they required you to have a storm?


No code requirement for that yet, as far as I know, I was just playing the "slippery slope" argument against Massachusetts.  Completely hypothetical, but also not too hard to imagine things heading that way.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 9, 2022)

FramerJ said:


> Im following you.  Excellent point about the windows. I was just meaning they are cheap quality.  But a cheap quality  energy star rated window is 10x better than the old single panes you and I grew up with.   I also agree about insulation.     To be clear, I dont have a problem adopting energy codes.   I wish they had energy codes when my house was built in 55.  I have no insulation in the walls.  All Im just saying is there is a cost. Upfront, which is added to the price of a house.  I know and you know whats saves money in the long run but IMO most people when buying a house want the largest they can get, with the most bells and whistles they can get.  Insulation is not even a thought.  Its not sexy.  Ive sat with people wanting a house built and when given the choice between batt insulation and spray foam, most decline the foam.  They would rather spend that money on other upgrades, depending on budget.  Obviously, if its code, the choice is made for them but the price of the house more than likely will reflect that.   I think a lot of people have trouble equating energy savings to dollar savings, especially if its something that takes years to get your money back.


Personally I don't understand that mentality. You can replace the kitchen cabinets, counter tops. floors down the road. It costs a hell of a lot more money to retrofit house insulation. Why wouldn't you not want to build the most energy efficient house that you can ? The cost of energy is only going up. Like you said, the average consumer wants the most sq. ft. for their dollar. *sigh*

When I added onto my house a number of years ago, spray foam insulation was double what batt insulation was. I ran the ROI numbers based off of some numbers I found on heating / cooling costs and you could easily see that you would get your money back within 10 - 15 years. Pretty easy sell in my brain. The geo ROI numbers, I don't think those have panned out. But that's probably another topic for another day.

Like you said, 2x6 walls, R60 attic insulation and spray foam insulation aren't "sexy" enough for the average consumer. They'd rather show off their granite counter tops, cathedral ceilings, and fake maple floors to their neighbors.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 9, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> Personally I don't understand that mentality... Why wouldn't you not want to build the most energy efficient house that you can ?


Why do people sign up for mortgage payments they easily know they can't afford to pay?  Why do people live beyond their means, and fail to save for retirement?

Lots of questions, but they all have the same answer.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 9, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Why do people sign up for mortgage payments they easily know they can't afford to pay?  Why do people live beyond their means, and fail to save for retirement?
> 
> Lots of questions, but they all have the same answer.


Not everyone who can't save for retirement is a dummy. In fact I would say that most people won't live very comfortably into their retirement, and it has nothing to do with smarts or work ethic. Just look at the average cost of living and wages for any area and you will see that most people can't afford to put away for their retirement and will work till they die or barely scrape by on SSI and/or disability. Otherwise you are implying that the majority of people in the bell curve are lazy and stupid, which statistically isn't possible. There should only be 5-10% of income earners that have a poverty retirement, but that is not the case. 

It's not a failing of the people, it's a failing of the system.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 9, 2022)

Our housing stock is probably some the longest continuously used infrastructure in the nation.  Times between complete renovations are probably at least 50 years.  I guess I don’t see why long ROI on infrastructure can’t be passed on to the next owner.   Maybe we need to pass laws that when houses are for sale they must disclose the past 12 months complete energy costs on the listing after  (or before) the number of bathrooms.    Look we are a society that in general prefers cheap over quality. We  Would rather have 2800 sq ft that just barely met code than 2000 sq ft that was done really well.   Install a 4 ton ac just to avoid any real load calculation. 

I’m reflecting on my only two times buying a house, one was new construction and second was a 1968 house that appraised under contract price.     The new construction in Maine, had 2x6 walls and I watched other units go up.  They were sound but not top quality.  No sill plate seal.  Daylight could be seen between foundation and sill.  Passed inspection. 

Both times there was not a second choice that was considered. 

What do you do as relatively inexperienced home buyers.  Listen to your realtor. He like the new heat pump on the 1968 house and pointed out the hat attic had insulation. We are sold homes and told to look at the amenities on the property, school district, location ect.  It the biggest purchase of our lives and we generally let our emotions steer us.   We let a home inspector find every window that is painted shut but not mention anything about codes permits. It if they did we probably would ignore them more than half the time.  I spent more time reading Amazon reviews the year I bought a house than researching code, best building practices, and how to size an hvac system.  All thing that have cost me orders of magnitude more than I spent on Amazon.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 9, 2022)

There are certified professionals that do energy audits, sadly it is not required by law. Realtors are agents of the seller not the buyer. Most buyers have to sign a realtor disclosure form that clearly describes that the realtor is agent of the seller, yet the buyers sign it and then immediately assume the realtor is working for them. A good realtor is not going to dissuade them from doing so. There is nothing in it for the realtor to suggest an energy audit, if they did so they would be working against their client the seller. 

A good energy audit can be done in less than a day of field time and in most cases will pay for itself in a couple of years. In many cases the realtors do not have a clue on selling energy savings. They typically are far more comfortable selling amenities that a potential buyer is able to see and feel. A typical home sale is "made" at the curb on emotional appeal, that is why curbside appeal is such an important thing. Most folks want the romance and the dream of a new to them house, few if any care how much it will cost them to own.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 9, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> Maybe we need to pass laws that when houses are for sale they must disclose the past 12 months complete energy costs on the listing after  (or before) the number of bathrooms.


You don't need a law for this.  I've asked the seller for exactly this information on every home I've purchased.  Even when I was buying my first house in my early 20's, I immediately knew utilities were going to be a big part of my budget.  Given how thin my budget was at the time, knowing my heating costs was of critical importance, and the seller also knew that sharing this information would help them to secure this buyer.  I've never had a seller not willing to photocopy or forward a few electric and fuel bills.

People need to occasionally take responsibility for their own decisions, not rely on the government to legislate common sense.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 10, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> Like you said, 2x6 walls, R60 attic insulation and spray foam insulation aren't "sexy" enough for the average consumer. They'd rather show off their granite counter tops, cathedral ceilings, and fake maple floors to their neighbors.



What's sad is this is considered "a well insulated house".

Where I live 2x6 walls with R22 and R60 in the attic is the bare minimum by current building code. 

My house is R22/R50, my parents R36/R60, and theirs's is considerably cheaper to heat even though its larger, and stays cool much longer in the summer.

IMO R35/R60 should be bare minimum for code in Canada.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 10, 2022)

Ashful said:


> You don't need a law for this.  I've asked the seller for exactly this information on every home I've purchased.  Even when I was buying my first house in my early 20's, I immediately knew utilities were going to be a big part of my budget.  Given how thin my budget was at the time, knowing my heating costs was of critical importance, and the seller also knew that sharing this information would help them to secure this buyer.  I've never had a seller not willing to photocopy or forward a few electric and fuel bills.
> 
> People need to occasionally take responsibility for their own decisions, not rely on the government to legislate common sense.


New cars list mileage,  appliances  list annual costs.  Why, to encourage more efficient buying habits.  If I thought I couldn’t afford the bills I would have asked for them.   I was environmentally minded but didn’t ask for them.  My argument for listing total energy cost is to elevate the importance and financial value  of good building choices.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 10, 2022)

ABMax24 said:


> What's sad is this is considered "a well insulated house".
> 
> Where I live 2x6 walls with R22 and R60 in the attic is the bare minimum by current building code.
> 
> ...


I agree, that is sad. 

In backwards Ohio we still build houses using 2x4’s (R-13 walls is minimum, per code ). R-30 is the minimum for attic insulation.  Your minimum code should be what ours is too IMHO.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 10, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> I agree, that is sad.
> 
> In backwards Ohio we still build houses using 2x4’s (R-13 walls is minimum, per code ). R-30 is the minimum for attic insulation.  Your minimum code should be what ours is too IMHO.


Extra Attic insulation requires little extra labor if using blown in insulation.  I get where 2x6 adds extra cost.  I can live with  the 2x4 if we  lower the minimum air tightness.  Blower door tests for the win!


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 10, 2022)

You guys are so funny.  Half the time you worry that someone is going to force a building code on you for something that won't pay off, and then you complain that the code required insulation level (that varies with regional climate) is too little.    

The missing factor here is the cheapness of energy.  Historically, energy was and IS very cheap.  So the optimum level of insulation is surprisingly low.  The amount of savings between an R-30 attic and an R-60 attic is quite small, since the heat cost goes like the reciprocal.  In my climate, I doubt it would pay.  Maybe I did the calc when I had R-30 blown in 10 years ago...

This cheapness of energy... its why we don't all live in passive houses.  Or drive Aptera EVs.

And cheap wind, cheap offshore wind, and cheap solar PV are throwing a hard ceiling on energy costs.  Folks that are pushing 'energy prices will skyrocket!' headlines... are trying to sell you something.

Yeah yeah, I know there is a gas crisis in the EU.  Just a blip.   In the long run... no problem.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 10, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> You guys are so funny.  Half the time you worry that someone is going to force a building code on you for something that won't pay off, and then you complain that the code required insulation level (that varies with regional climate) is too little.
> 
> The missing factor here is the cheapness of energy.  Historically, energy was and IS very cheap.  So the optimum level of insulation is surprisingly low.  The amount of savings between an R-30 attic and an R-60 attic is quite small, since the heat cost goes like the reciprocal.  In my climate, I doubt it would pay.  Maybe I did the calc when I had R-30 blown in 10 years ago...
> 
> ...


I’m guessing in 10 years I will be paying more for electricity than I am now.   No data just feeling that Dukes share holders want to see ever increasing profits.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 10, 2022)

> I’m guessing in 10 years I will be paying more for electricity than I am now. No data just feeling that Dukes share holders want to see ever increasing profits.



Funny story.  This new way of making cheap electrical power was invented.  Its called solar PV.   In a utility installation, the total SYSTEM cost (panels, inverters, mounts, everything) in 2021 has fallen to $0.90/Watt.  After tax incentives... maybe $0.75/Watt.  And it will run, more or less maintenance free for decades.

That Watt of PV will make close to 2 kWh per year of energy.  In the first 10 years,  that 75 cents of PV will make 15-20 kWh.  Sure sounds like you could sell that power at a profit, for pennies per kWh.  And indeed, that is what the PV builders bid it at.

Crazy! you say.  If that were true, utilities would be installing PV as fast as they possibly can, and hardly installing anything else.  Yup that is exactly what has been happening for a couple years now.  The only other thing they build is onshore wind, which is even cheaper.  LOL.

How much utility solar was built in 2021?  18,000 MW of capacity in the US.  That is as much electrical energy as 3 or 4 big 1,000 MW nuke plants would make, added just in 2021, making power for pennies per kWh.   Yeah, that is not a projection, it was last year.

And that is completely ignoring, BTW, the measly 4,000 MW installed on US rooftops in 2021.

Since the IRA, that utility solar number is projected to double by 2026, and triple by 2029.  Imagine that, as much NEW energy production being added to the grid, continuously, as building a new 1,000 MW nuke every 4-6 _weeks_ just in the US.  For the whole back end of this decade.

I think there is gonna be plenty of energy and profits to be made at current (inflation corrected) prices in 2032.

Source:  https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/USSMI - 2021 YIR ES.pdf


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 10, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> The missing factor here is the cheapness of energy.  Historically, energy was and IS very cheap.  So the optimum level of insulation is surprisingly low.  The amount of savings between an R-30 attic and an R-60 attic is quite small, since the heat cost goes like the reciprocal.  In my climate, I doubt it would pay.  Maybe I did the calc when I had R-30 blown in 10 years ago...



You are only thinking in economic terms; the optimum level, as set by dollar cost. I added insulation (from R19 to R47) and air sealed my attic. Did all myself. Cost $1000 in fiber glass and a few tens for silicone and spray foam cans. And 6 weekends.


The problem with cost determined like this is that not all cost has been included. I did it for my wallet and for the environment. Simple as that.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 10, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Funny story.  This new way of making cheap electrical power was invented.  Its called solar PV.   In a utility installation, the total SYSTEM cost (panels, inverters, mounts, everything) in 2021 has fallen to $0.90/Watt.  After tax incentives... maybe $0.75/Watt.  And it will run, more or less maintenance free for decades.
> 
> That Watt of PV will make close to 2 kWh per year of energy.  In the first 10 years,  that 75 cents of PV will make 15-20 kWh.  Sure sounds like you could sell that power at a profit, for pennies per kWh.  And indeed, that is what the PV builders bid it at.
> 
> ...



To ground this thread in reality, the sun doesn't shine at night. And there isn't a cost effective method to store energy for nighttime use.

Electricity prices will increase in most places for at least the next 10 years, at which time they might level off or drop.

This doesn't even include the substantial upgrades required in most of north America required to support EVs and a low carbon future.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 10, 2022)

There is a cost effective way of storing energy at night. Has it been deployed? not yet, there has to be societal decision to change course and in the US that has not happened. Most areas have the equivalent of the CA duck curve (solar influenced) although it may look like some other animal. Texas has a different curve due to windfarms. If northeast deploys offshore wind, the curve will look different. Odds are the overnight storage will not be lithium and will look different region by region. There are several proven flow battery chemistries out there that do not require rare elements. They are lower power density but cheaper. If fossil generation is kept artificially cheap by not putting a value on carbon emissions, then storage is expensive, but in carbon pricing and suddenly renewables with storage are cheap and investors will be lined up to put in storage.

Storage is a chicken and egg situation which got sidelined in the US for a minimum of four years plus an election cycle and the time spent dealing with January 6th. The federal government in the US has essentially been frozen until the recent major legislation and even that had to be bought with some very unappealing backroom dealing. In the mean times states are having to take the initiative and some are.  It will be learning curve just as dealing with climate change will be. Compared to climate change its far easier to control the shift to renewables.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 10, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> There is a cost effective way of storing energy at night. Has it been deployed, not yet, there has to be societal decision to change course and in the US that has not happened. Most areas have the equivalent of the CA duck curve (solar influenced) although it may look like some other animal. Texas has a different curve due to windfarms. If northeast deploys offshore wind, the curve will look different. Odds are the overnight storage will not be lithium and will look different region by region. There are several proven flow battery chemistries out there that do not require rare elements. They are lower power density but cheaper. If fossil generation is kept artificially cheap by not putting a value on carbon emissions, then storage is expensive, but in carbon pricing and suddenly renewables with storage are cheap and investors will be lined up to put in storage.
> 
> Storage is a chicken and egg situation which got sidelined in the US for a minimum of four years plus an election cycle and the time spent dealing with January 6th. The federal government in the US has essentially been frozen until the recent major legislation and even that had to be bought with some very unappealing backroom dealing. In the mean times states are having to take the initiative and some are.  It will be learning curve just as dealing with climate change will be. Compared to climate change its far easier to control the shift to renewables.


Tesla is making 42 mega packs a week in Nevada.  That’s 120 Mwh of new storage a week.  I imagine global production rates will continue to increase.  Call that 6 GWh new storage minimum per year.  They claim to have 5+ GWh already deployed.  

Texas’s solar and wind generation curves are really impressive.  One would assume they are running the wind at full capacity but I can’t confirm.


----------



## Prof (Sep 10, 2022)

Threads like this make me want to drink more than I do--which would make my PCP less than happy. Either way, I suspect that I will be OK. I worry about him though, he is a skinny guy that the next pandemic may be more than he has the constitution for.  At any rate, EVs are the way of the future, as much as the model T once was. The grid will catch up. In the mean time (probably the time I have left on the planet), hybrids will do just fine--likely better. I will have solar panels on my house, a heat-pump hot water heater, and a hybrid in my garage (maybe.... the old skid steer--a diesel, takes up most of the space). At any rate, we will abide with less of a footprint than my grandparents. My kids will do markedly better than I did--in more ways than this. We will be fine as what we know changes.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 11, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> Tesla is making 42 mega packs a week in Nevada.  That’s 120 Mwh of new storage a week.  I imagine global production rates will continue to increase.  Call that 6 GWh new storage minimum per year.  They claim to have 5+ GWh already deployed.
> 
> Texas’s solar and wind generation curves are really impressive.  One would assume they are running the wind at full capacity but I can’t confirm.



While that is an absolutely incredible amount of battery storage, it's still a drop in the bucket. The Province of Alberta is 4.3 million people, and averages 9500mw of electrical consumption, an entire years output of the Nevada Gigafactory would only be enough battery capacity to power us for about 40 minutes. It would take over a decade of building batteries to get us through the night if we were to rely on 100% PV power.

Again, nothing short of impressive, but orders of magnitude less capacity than the world needs.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 11, 2022)

ABMax24 said:


> While that is an absolutely incredible amount of battery storage, it's still a drop in the bucket. The Province of Alberta is 4.3 million people, and averages 9500mw of electrical consumption, an entire years output of the Nevada Gigafactory would only be enough battery capacity to power us for about 40 minutes. It would take over a decade of building batteries to get us through the night if we were to rely on 100% PV power.
> 
> Again, nothing short of impressive, but orders of magnitude less capacity than the world needs.


 I completely agree. What percent if total generating capacity will storage make up?  I want to know how many hours a day we would be running in batteries.  Presumably it’s less than 12.  Probably they are most profitable during peak times. But is that 2 or 4 or 8 hours a day.  I think as we transition to to more solar and wind there would be secondary peak times that would not be driven by demand but by supply.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 11, 2022)

ABMax24 said:


> To ground this thread in reality, the sun doesn't shine at night. And there isn't a cost effective method to store energy for nighttime use.



What is unrealistic?  The report I linked suggested a US Solar PV fleet size of 700,000 MW in 2032, post the IRA passage.  Without passage, the estimate was 460,000 MW.

The installed 2021 PV fleet in the US is 120,000 MW. 

Assuming that the capacity factor is 17% (1/6) then the 2021 fleet provides the same energy as 20 1,000 MW nukes running flat out.

The projected 2032 fleet is 6x larger, the same as adding 100 new 1,000 MW nukes, in terms of energy delivered.  For pennies per kW.

Storage?  Why?  As impressive as the numbers above are, in 2021, solar only provided about 3% of US grid energy.  Growing by 6X over the next decade only gets solar to 18% of energy.   A little googling shows that that is just where California is right now... about 20% of grid energy.  Without much storage.

The projected decadal buildout just brings the rest of the US up to the 2021 CA level. 

As we approach that level, there are a lot of options:
1.  Throttling back gas and hydro production during the day.
2. trackers... to give a flatter power output throughout the day, and more power in the afternoon.  Adds about 15-20% to the install cost, but yields more energy.
3. offering TOU rates to residential or industrial customers to increase demand during high solar production period.  With the larger fleet of EVs in the 2030, this is more helpful than now.
4. Curtailment of some PV during some peak production.

And when all that runs out... then we do storage.  We will need storage to go much further than that.

Source: https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/USSMI - 2021 YIR ES.pdf


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 11, 2022)

ABMax24 said:


> To ground this thread in reality, the sun doesn't shine at night.


To add a lighter note to this thread: huh? Yes it does 😂


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 11, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> I completely agree. What percent if total generating capacity will storage make up?  I want to know how many hours a day we would be running in batteries.  Presumably it’s less than 12.  Probably they are most profitable during peak times. But is that 2 or 4 or 8 hours a day.  I think as we transition to to more solar and wind there would be secondary peak times that would not be driven by demand but by supply.



There's going to be a need for both daily, and seasonal storage. Of course daily storage is what will be built first.

The time needs will vary greatly by region. In my case about 80% of our electricity is generated by natural gas or coal. To completely leave fossil fuels behind batteries would need to carry 80% of the load for at least 12 hours, and then pray it isn't cloudy the next morning.

Obviously load shifting will have to occur to decrease reliance on batteries, and electricity pricing in my province will reverse. Currently the highest wholesale pricing occurs during the day, when demand is highest. That will flip, and occur at night, when battery storage and other means handle the load.



woodgeek said:


> What is unrealistic?



That solar PV installations will push electricity rates down in the short term, which is what your post was responding to.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 11, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> And cheap wind, cheap offshore wind, and cheap solar PV are throwing a hard ceiling on energy costs. Folks that are pushing 'energy prices will skyrocket!' headlines... are trying to sell you something.


My electric bill says otherwise. They raised our rates a few years ago, and they said they are going to raise them again. My electric coop is not for profit too.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 11, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> My electric bill says otherwise. They raised our rates a few years ago, and they said they are going to raise them again. My electric coop is not for profit too.


Short term they have to follow price of natural gas.  Yes they have gone up and probably will again in the next 12 months.     I do agree 20-30 year lifespan solar panels have low cost per watt and that will result in lower prices at some point.  Currently we are at 13.X cents per kWh total bill.  It will go up again 7% next year.  But we are one Governors election  away from a rate commission that will likely approve much steeper increases.     I think we could easily see 20 cents a kWh before the renewable revolution drops prices we are paying.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 11, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> You are only thinking in economic terms; the optimum level, as set by dollar cost.


Like it or not, economics are the terms upon which such decisions are made.  The only way to coerce better decisions in this country is to make them work on economic terms.



stoveliker said:


> To add a lighter note to this thread: huh? Yes it does 😂


Spoken like a scientist, not an engineer. 



ABMax24 said:


> Electricity prices will increase in most places for at least the next 10 years, at which time they might level off or drop.


I've been hearing this since I bought my first house in the 1990's.  Thank God they were wrong, and continue to be wrong, and will probably always continue to be wrong.  Energy from my electric utility have varied between flat and decreasing, year by year when factoring for inflation, since at least the mid-1990's.  In fact, my bundled rate has gone down by $.01/kWh over the last five years.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 11, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I've been hearing this since I bought my first house in the 1990's.  Thank God they were wrong, and continue to be wrong, and will probably always continue to be wrong.  Energy from my electric utility have varied between flat and decreasing, year by year when factoring for inflation, since at least the mid-1990's.  In fact, my bundled rate has gone down by $.01/kWh over the last five years.



"Past performance is not indicative of future results"

Our electricity prices have nearly doubled in the last 2 years, yours will also go up when rate hikes are approved due to the increasing cost of fuel for the powerplants.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 11, 2022)

The climate crisis won't be solved because it's the right thing to do for humans and the planet, but because it will be the most profitable course of action.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 11, 2022)

ABMax24 said:


> "Past performance is not indicative of future results"
> 
> Our electricity prices have nearly doubled in the last 2 years, yours will also go up when rate hikes are approved due to the increasing cost of fuel for the powerplants.


I think as the energy markets become more global and we build more interconnections to the grid we are likely to see more uniform rates across the country.  CA and New England may not see much increase but I really am just speculating


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 11, 2022)

Ashful said:


> The only way to coerce better decisions in this country is to make them work on economic terms.



Not everyone is like that. People do make the right choices (better decisions) because it's the right thing to do.

I have to say that that statement is an indictment of the selfish attitude of the people in this country.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 11, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> I think as the energy markets become more global and we build more interconnections to the grid we are likely to see more uniform rates across the country.  CA and New England may not see much increase but I really am just speculating


I wish I paid Duke energy rates!


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 11, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> I wish I paid Duke energy rates!


We are at the national average or just above.  I would like to see the per customer weighted average   California and New England would drive that up.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 11, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> Not everyone is like that. People do make the right choices (better decisions) because it's the right thing to do.


You’re right, not everyone is like that. But those who are in positions to actually control policy generally are.  Very few CEO’s are in their position as a result of making unprofitable decisions. .


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 11, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> Short term they have to follow price of natural gas.  Yes they have gone up and probably will again in the next 12 months.     I do agree 20-30 year lifespan solar panels have low cost per watt and that will result in lower prices at some point.  Currently we are at 13.X cents per kWh total bill.  It will go up again 7% next year.  But we are one Governors election  away from a rate commission that will likely approve much steeper increases.     I think we could easily see 20 cents a kWh before the renewable revolution drops prices we are paying.


I’m in Ohio, so most of our electricity is generated from coal. The per ton price of thermal coal is the highest it’s been in the last 5 years.





__





						Coal - 2022 Data - 2008-2021 Historical - 2023 Forecast - Price - Quote - Chart
					

Newcastle coal futures rose above $350 per tonne and are more than 120% higher in the last 12 months as demand outpaces supply. La Niña phenomenon, a pattern of weather in the Pacific Ocean that brings wet weather and flooding to Australia, has hit coal production for miners, including Glencore...




					tradingeconomics.com
				




Our electric coop has put over a billion dollars worth of scrubbers in their coal plant over the last number of years. I don’t see them abandoning their investment in that plant anytime soon. 

I’m all for renewable energy, but I think we should look at what’s going on in Europe and what happened in Texas a number of years ago before we close all of our traditional power plants.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 11, 2022)

What is happening in Europe has nothing to do with "closing all traditional power plants".


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 11, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> I’m in Ohio, so most of our electricity is generated from coal. The per ton price of thermal coal is the highest it’s been in the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are blips.  And probably should inform  policy.  Not anything we need rush to action over.  With the huge exception that the the design temps that generating  stations in Texas were built to were completely inadequate and they knew it. But 10 years ago I don’t think anyone would have guessed Russians would invade a sovereign nation.   As for Texas,  that really is just a Texas thing.  No other energy market in the US operates like that.  It will get record cold again. More probable is record heat.  Systems will fail and backups need to be thoughtfully engineered.  Coal is will go the way if the horse.  Some places it will hang on longer.   They all see the writing on the wall. Ohioans emissions that four over new England were a catalyst to a lot the earlier regulations.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 11, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> What is happening in Europe has nothing to do with "closing all traditional power plants".



What!?

France and Germany closing nuclear plants in favor of intermittent renewables doesn't have an effect?

Germany closing coal powerplants fuelled by domestic brown coal doesn't have an effect?

Doing both the above and then building natural gas peaker plants increasingly fuelled by Russian gas doesn't have an effect?

Interesting...


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 11, 2022)

The point is they had all working well, after closing nuclear and coal plants.
The issue is the nat. gas deliveries due to Russia.

It is NOT the closing of traditional plants that caused this. The primary cause is Russia. The energy system did get less resilient as a consequence of the choices made, but the choices made did not cause this.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 11, 2022)

And France did not close nuclear plants for renewables. It has temporary closures for maintenance.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 11, 2022)

Relying on a less than friendly neighbour for such a critical commodity is questionable at best. Especially after previous agressions in the region.

I hope that's the one lesson we've learned during Covid and now the Ukraine war. It's worth the extra cost to develop domestic production/manufacturing or at the very least, form trading arrangement with strong allies.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 11, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> What is happening in Europe has nothing to do with "closing all traditional power plants".


Germany went all in on renewables over the last numbers of years. If that plan is working out so well, why are they keeping their nuclear plants online then ?









						Germany to keep two nuclear plants available as a backup and burn coal as it faces an energy crisis brought on by war and climate change
					

The German government announced its plans to keep the Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim nuclear power plants on a kind of backup status.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 11, 2022)

The statement I responded to seemed to imply renewables were to blame. That is not the case. Not in Europe and not in the hypothetical case of the US.
Not closing nat. gas plants would not have made a d*mn difference, because the gas in Europe mostly (not all) comes from Russia. Not having closed those plants, and thus being even MORE reliant on nat. gas would have resulted in a far bigger problem now. Of course closing coal plants was a larger thing than closing nat. gas plants.

The coal problem is different. The problem with that right now for the existing plants is that transportation is a problem due to low river water levels.

 (And as I said, the nuclear power in France is not down because of renewables, or down because of political choices, it's down because of maintenance, part of which was postponed during Covid.)

Nuclear in Germany should not have been closed (imo; I'm pro nuclear power; better to have pollution localized in 1 cubic mile (e.g. underground) than in all of our atmosphere (CO2 and other stuff)). There are in fact voices to reverse the "close nukes" decisions right now.

I maintain that the problem is not conventional plants closing, the problem is certainly not renewables (glad to have them when other supplies are problematic!), the problem is Russia. Period. And the uncertainty that a transition brings with it, includes a smaller resilience, temporarily. That is normal too. It just sucks that Russia did this now.


----------



## tlc1976 (Sep 11, 2022)

My electric co-op has been taking about a rate increase next year. They just published their plans in the magazine they send to all their members.

The plan is to increase the rate by $.007/kWh. Yes less than 1 cent. From $.108 to $.115.

And increase the fixed rate by $2, from $32.21 to $34.21.

No change to any of the other billing categories. Sounds like peanuts to me. Especially since something like 12 years ago, they lowered the price per kWh by 1c, when they added the fixed fee. This was due to the large amount of seasonal residents we have, who use little to no power for most of the year, while expecting year round service and line maintenance. While giving the full time residents less of the burden.

We don’t have time of use rates. More power is usually used at night when it’s dark and colder. The AC season is short, and not even used by everyone. I have no need for it.

I’ve had this co-op at every house I’ve lived in, and I was born here. They’ve been very good with service. Never seen any dirty tricks like the power companies of some of my coworkers. Not only that but my co-op has been getting fiber internet to rural folks who the local monopoly has refused to service for decades. I hope they can keep going as they’ve been for all this time.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 12, 2022)

ABMax24 said:


> Relying on a less than friendly neighbour for such a critical commodity is questionable at best. Especially after previous agressions in the region.
> 
> I hope that's the one lesson we've learned during Covid and now the Ukraine war. It's worth the extra cost to develop domestic production/manufacturing or at the very least, form trading arrangement with strong allies.


Absolutely.  The Germans adhered to a philosophy that trade integration would lead to lasting peace.   I guess that didn't work out, just as it failed to do 100 years ago.  You could definitely argue that the 2014 Crimea invasion was the only warning that they should've needed.   You can add it to the boneheaded decision to close their nukes, while keeping their brown coal plants cranking, after breaking the bank on solar (when they have a very poor solar resource and before solar was a cheap as now). 

Fiasco after fiasco after fiasco in Germany.

The same 'trade leads to peace' attitude was at play with putting China in the WTO.  We'll see if that pans out better.

We can say that the US (under the previous AND current administrations) has gotten serious about using govt and industrial policy to reshore and friend-shore critical material and component supply chains.  This slow process is finally starting to build up steam, but will take a decade.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 12, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> They are blips.  And probably should inform  policy.  Not anything we need rush to action over.  With the huge exception that the the design temps that generating  stations in Texas were built to were completely inadequate and they knew it. But 10 years ago I don’t think anyone would have guessed Russians would invade a sovereign nation.   As for Texas,  that really is just a Texas thing.  No other energy market in the US operates like that.  It will get record cold again. More probable is record heat.  Systems will fail and backups need to be thoughtfully engineered.  Coal is will go the way if the horse.  Some places it will hang on longer.   They all see the writing on the wall. Ohioans emissions that four over new England were a catalyst to a lot the earlier regulations.


Maine is almost the same as Texas as far as the power market goes.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 12, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> Maine is almost the same as Texas as far as the power market goes.


I suspect that the equipment in ME is designed to operate in below freezing temps, unlike the gas fired equipment and pipelines in TX.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 12, 2022)

Yup, first power plant I worked in in Texas was an eye opener compared to the northern plants I worked on. I did a peformance test on a couple of gas peakers and there was one control/maintenance/electrical building for the two turbines and everything else was outdoors and all the piping was above ground with no insulation. I worked in few biomass plants in CA that were the same, A structural frame to hold the parts in place with lots of open catwalks. My favorite was in Northern CA where I could watch the surfers out on the Pacific across the dunes from the firing deck of the boiler.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 12, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> The statement I responded to seemed to imply renewables were to blame. That is not the case. Not in Europe and not in the hypothetical case of the US.


Since I made the statement I'll infer where I was going with it. 

I wasn't blaming anything on renewables, where I was placing the blame is that it feels like we are going all in on renewables but there's not a solid backup plan if something happens. I think what happened in Texas, and what's going on in Europe now should of taught us that we need a mix of everything to keep the lights on 24x7 until battery / storage tech has come up to speed. Buying NG from a non-friendly country doesn't feel like a solid plan, or a backup plan IMHO. And the last time I checked, coal didn't freeze.


----------



## SpaceBus (Sep 12, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I suspect that the equipment in ME is designed to operate in below freezing temps, unlike the gas fired equipment and pipelines in TX.


I meant as far as pricing and regulation, not the physical equipment.


----------



## begreen (Sep 12, 2022)

Renewables are great to add to the mix, but not always great for baseload power unless there is a major hydro or geothermal system to provide this power. Solar, wind, & tidal are all intermittent sources of power. Some good solutions can sometimes be employed to store excess renewable energy if feasible, but for now nuclear is the cleanest source for baseload power until we develop better technical solutions and consume less power.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 12, 2022)

begreen said:


> Renewables are great to add to the mix, but not always great for baseload power unless there is a major hydro or geothermal system to provide this power. Solar, wind, & tidal are all intermittent sources of power. Some good solutions can sometimes be employed to store excess renewable energy if feasible, but for now nuclear is the cleanest source for baseload power until we develop better technical solutions and consume less power.


I think you had mentioned a past in boating, begreen.  I'm not sure if this has come up here or elsewhere before, but the bays, inlets, sounds, rivers that make up the intracoastal waterway would seem to have theoretical potential to provide more constant base load, than I think most imagine.  I say this because bay and sound tide tables lag those of inlets and oceans, such that the slack water period at one location could be a peak velocity period in a neighboring region just a few miles up the coast.  So, while offshore tidal generation may indeed suffer from periodic productivity, I'd think there's at least some opportunity to moderate that with (perhaps less powerful) intercoastal tides.


----------



## begreen (Sep 12, 2022)

At our high latitude, we have strong tidal changes. A local county power utility did a deep study of strong tidal currents in Puget Sound. To the disappointment of many, it came to the conclusion that it was not economically feasible. That was in 2006. Since then, other countries have been developing newer technology and hopefully, this huge source of power can be successfully tapped. 








						Snohomish County PUD Cancels Tidal Power Project
					

Snohomish County Public Utility District has pulled the plug on its high-profile research project to develop technology that harnesses the tides to…




					www.knkx.org
				




I see that the EIA just updated info on tidal projects, so maybe there will be some progress if environmental programs are not scuppered as Reagan did back in 1980.  





						Tidal power - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
					

Tidal power for electricity generation and locations of tidal power facilities around the world.




					www.eia.gov


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 12, 2022)

The Bay of Fundy has been a test bed for tidal power for some time. Lots of energy to be produced there. Unfortunately it seems most equipment that has been installed there has been destroyed in short order by the tides.


----------



## begreen (Sep 12, 2022)

Yes, the Bay of Fundy is at a similar latitude as upper Puget Sound. Didn't a system there (Annapolis?) run for about 30 yrs.? The currents here can be very strong. Local topography doesn't lend itself well to a barrage system so tidal stream generation is what was researched. Unfortunately, the costs ballooned to the point of putting the PUD in jeopardy and congress wouldn't approve funding to help the project. For this area, I wonder if something like the decommissioned SeaGen project would be feasible. 








						SeaGen - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 12, 2022)

Tidal flow energy harvesting can be quite constant; while maximum tide is a point in time, the flow is more continuous. Though of course varying in speed.

I would be more concerned with the effect on (PNW: Salmon?) wildlife.  
Also, the best harvesting happens when the flow is quite restricted, i.e. the whole width of an inlet is used (so there are less parasitic flows) - and that is not great for (commercial) traffic on the water.

Great energy source, but doing it right does require some careful thinking. (A common issue in change...)


----------



## begreen (Sep 12, 2022)

This is what happens at Deception Pass when a foolish sailor tries to buck the tide.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 12, 2022)

That's some energy right there!


----------



## begreen (Sep 12, 2022)

Bucking the tide there is a good way to burn up a lot of fuel.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 12, 2022)

begreen said:


> Yes, the Bay of Fundy is at a similar latitude as upper Puget Sound. Didn't a system there (Annapolis?) run for about 30 yrs.? The currents here can be very strong. Local topography doesn't lend itself well to a barrage system so tidal stream generation is what was researched. Unfortunately, the costs ballooned to the point of putting the PUD in jeopardy and congress wouldn't approve funding to help the project. For this area, I wonder if something like the decommissioned SeaGen project would be feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes that's true. I guess I was referencing the underwater turbines that looked like mini windmills, none of them seemed to last.



begreen said:


> Bucking the tide there is a good way to burn up a lot of fuel.




Lots of power there.

Interesting example for this thread though, the fuel hungry boats didn't have an issue...


----------



## PassionForFire&Water (Sep 13, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> Since I made the statement I'll infer where I was going with it.
> 
> I wasn't blaming anything on renewables, where I was placing the blame is that it feels like we are going all in on renewables but there's not a solid backup plan if something happens. I think what happened in Texas, and what's going on in Europe now should of taught us that we need a mix of everything to keep the lights on 24x7 until battery / storage tech has come up to speed. Buying NG from a non-friendly country doesn't feel like a solid plan, or a backup plan IMHO. And the last time I checked, coal didn't freeze.


A mix of everything we have available, that is exactly right!


----------



## Brian26 (Sep 25, 2022)

National Grid customers in Massachusetts are getting one hell of a rate increase.  Looks like its going from .30 kwh to .49 kwh?

Many Mass. Customers Will See a 64% Increase in Their Electric Bills This Winter

National Grid said the monthly bill of a typical residential customer using 600 kilowatt-hours will increase from $179 last winter to about $293 this winter, an increase of about 64%. National Grid said the delivery portion of electric bills will basically remain flat.









						Many Mass. Customers Will See a 64% Increase in Their Electric Bills This Winter
					

National Grid customers are expected to see a 64% increase in their electric bills this winter, the company announced Wednesday. In a press release titled “Winter Customer Savings Initiative,” the power company announced that natural gas prices are expected to be significantly higher this winter...




					www.nbcboston.com


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 25, 2022)

All of New England will be seeing big increases as the region bet on natural gas 25 years ago. The only nuclear plants left are Millstone in CT and Seabrook in NH. Mass was hoping to get an additional hookup to Hydro Quebec via a new line in Maine but that is not happening for another year if ever. There is an approved and permitted project down through VT, but it was deemed too expensive by HQ, if the money thrown away on the NH project that failed and the Maine project that may fail were added up its looking like someone made a bad bet as the VT project would be on line by now. New England is supply limited for natural gas through the pipelines so any extra gas has to come from LNG. LNG is in great demand  now and more so this winter due to the Russian mess so New England will have a choice of heating homes or keeping the lights on. New England has very little gas storage due to the local geology.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 25, 2022)

Maybe those of us still on oil should hang onto our boilers, just a bit longer.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 25, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Maybe those of us still on oil should hang onto our boilers, just a bit longer.


So a quick look shows 0,50$ per KWh with a cop of 3 is roughly equatorial fuel oil at 4,75$ a gallon. Propane at 3.75$ and nat at 2.95$ a therm. 

Propane at  





						Residential Heating System Cost Calculator | Efficiency Maine
					

Our heating cost comparison calculator can help you estimate your annual home heating costs for different heating systems.




					www.efficiencymaine.com


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 25, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Maybe those of us still on oil should hang onto our boilers, just a bit longer.


No worries, you are on the correct side of the Hudson, in the land of fracking, cheap gas and legacy nukes.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 25, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> So a quick look shows 0,50$ per KWh with a cop of 3 is roughly equatorial fuel oil at 4,75$ a gallon


I'd been paying mid-$2's to mid-$3's, the last ten years, prior to the European embargo on Russian oil.  But even with Putin playing his games, my price today is 15% lower than that bench mark.

Of course, I'm paying nowhere near $0.50/kWh, either!


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 26, 2022)

Looking at current heating oil futures (see below), its a good bet for this winter compared to natural gas. Heating oil is also energy dense and can be easily stored. When I used oil, I never used more than 500 gallons a year and fairly quickly installed a second oil tank so I could fill up once a year during the summer when prices were low. 

I had a coworker at one point that had a sixties contemporary, lots of glass, partially on a slab, shallow roof and odd foot print with lot of exterior walls. In order to keep the snow off the roof there was zero insulation in the ceilings. He had two oil tanks but went through 2500 gallons a winter. There is large natural gas line that comes through the area but with the exception of a couple of prisons and a papermill that are near the line and have a tap, there is no natural gas available, so its oil or propane.


----------



## Brian26 (Sep 26, 2022)

So looked a little further and it really will be .49 delivered. The supply/generation side is going from 11.491 to 33.891 per kwh. Since electricity is deregulated in Massachusetts National Grid makes no profit off the supply side. When you add on their delivery fees and other charges the total cost delivered is .49 kwh.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 26, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> Looking at current heating oil futures (see below), its a good bet for this winter compared to natural gas. Heating oil is also energy dense and can be easily stored. When I used oil, I never used more than 500 gallons a year and fairly quickly installed a second oil tank so I could fill up once a year during the summer when prices were low.
> 
> I had a coworker at one point that had a sixties contemporary, lots of glass, partially on a slab, shallow roof and odd foot print with lot of exterior walls. In order to keep the snow off the roof there was zero insulation in the ceilings. He had two oil tanks but went through 2500 gallons a winter.


Good info.  It's funny that my prior house, a relatively small 2500 sq.ft. with all new windows, had two 275 gallon tanks.  I went thru a little more than 600 gal/year there, so I couldn't quite make a full year, but could usually time it well enough on pricing.  I did have some sludge issues with the tanks in that house, perhaps the result of having too much stored for too long.

This house has only one 275 gallon tank, and we use about 2700 gallons per year without the stoves going, heating about 6400 sq.ft. with mostly 250 year old windows and doors.  The oil company called us an "every 7-10 day'er", meaning they have to deliver here every 7 - 10 days, to be sure we don't run dry if the stoves aren't kept going.  With the stoves, I can usually hold us to 1000 gallons per year, with a third of that being domestic hot water usage and storage.  I suppose it must frustrate their predictive usage software, to see I may only use 100 gallons from one delivery, and then blow almost clean thru 275 gallons on the next because I wasn't burning, but they have never complained.

I am in the process of replacing that aging tank now, for safety rather than added capacity, as my oil company lets me pre-buy at summer pricing without having to store it in my own basement.


----------



## Tithis (Sep 26, 2022)

Brian26 said:


> So looked a little further and it really will be .49 delivered. The supply/generation side is going from 11.491 to 33.891 per kwh. Since electricity is deregulated in Massachusetts National Grid makes no profit off the supply side. When you add on their delivery fees and other charges the total cost delivered is .49 kwh.
> 
> View attachment 299451



This is making the whole energy choice thing potentially useful for once. (https://www.energyswitchma.gov)
Normally they have always been more expensive then getting it from Nation grid. Cheapest one without a cancellation fee claims to be 100% renewable and is offering it at 22.49 cents per kwh, which should work out to a final price of about 37.6 cents/kwh after adding the delivery & transmission rates. Still a little suspicious of the whole thing though. 

Originally I was planning to only burn wood in the middle of winter and with the heatpump covering  the milder parts + helping even out the house a bit. I don't want to burn not fully seasoned wood again like last year, so I might order a couple pallets of biobricks. Per BTU I think works out as twice as expensive as delivered cordwood, but certainly cheaper then propane or the heatpump this year.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 26, 2022)

No doubt burning wood or biobricks is the way to go this winter unless you have true net metered solar. 

In my case in NH I am grandfathered into a closed rate plan for my existing arrays where I get paid the exact same amount for the power I export as what I import minus a very small state sales tax (20 or 30 cents a month)  which  is probably illegal but no wants to fight it.


----------



## Tithis (Sep 26, 2022)

We want to get  solar eventually, got enough room for probably a 7KW system on our detached garage that faces due south with a basically ideal pitch. Other projects have just been taking priority for a bit, if this lasts longer than the winter that will likely change though.

Just ordered 3 tons of biobricks to be delivered to supplement the 2 cords of oak and maple. Just need to clear some room in the garage now.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 26, 2022)

I can't imagine roof-top solar ever paying for itself in Mass.  I've run the numbers for southeastern Pennsylvania, and best-case scenario is a break even, and only then if you pretend inflation doesn't exist.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 26, 2022)

Mass has had some incredible incentives over the past 10 years for household solar.  Many of the programs were far too generous. One of my coworkers installed a 10 KW system and paid for it in about 3 years. Power is steep in the state. Basically, in Mass if you do not put solar on your house you are paying for your neighbor to do so. 

BTW, they also have some great incentives on batteries.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 26, 2022)

That was my thought; with 50 ct/kWh rates, even if the net metering is not really good, it might be worth looking into adding a battery.


----------



## Brian26 (Sep 27, 2022)

Massachusetts has literally the best solar and battery incentives in the nation.  They have a program called connected solutions where they pay you $1800 a year to draw from your battery during high demand. The program is 5 years so they essentially pay for your battery and then you get a free battery with 5 more years of the 10 year warranty.  Go put a Massachusetts address in the Tesla site and see all the incentives there. The current return on investment on solar there is around 5 years with all the incentives. With this price increase I could see it going down to 3.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 27, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> Mass has had some incredible incentives over the past 10 years for household solar.  Many of the programs were far too generous... Basically, in Mass if you do not put solar on your house you are paying for your neighbor to do so.





Brian26 said:


> ...they pay you $1800 a year to draw from your battery during high demand. The program is 5 years so they essentially pay for your battery and then you get a free battery...



This mentality always surprises me, @Brian26. 

@peakbagger already correctly said it, but to put a finer point on it, it is not "free".   The government doesn't make money, and they can't give anything to you for free.  All they can do is take money from you, lose some of it due to a debatable combination of operating costs, inefficiency, and corruption, and then return the rest in goods and services.  Economics 101.

@peakbagger's, "if you do not put solar on your house, you are paying your neighbor to do so," is almost as good as Reagan's, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 27, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I can't imagine roof-top solar ever paying for itself in Mass.



But you said this. And the scale where "this" matters is the individual scale, because that is where the decision is made, and where cost vs benefits is calculated. And as you can see, on that scale it does pay for itself, because the cost (for the individual) is so low in MA.


----------



## Brian26 (Sep 27, 2022)

Ashful said:


> This mentality always surprises me, @Brian26.
> 
> @peakbagger already correctly said it, but to put a finer point on it, it is not "free".   The government doesn't make money, and they can't give anything to you for free.  All they can do is take money from you, lose some of it due to a debatable combination of operating costs, inefficiency, and corruption, and then return the rest in goods and services.  Economics 101.
> 
> @peakbagger's, "if you do not put solar on your house, you are paying your neighbor to do so," is almost as good as Reagan's, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."


None of Massachusetts incentives are from federal money. Almost all of them are funded by energy efficiency surcharges on electric and gas bills. Here in CT something like 5% of your electric bill is to fund the energy efficiency fund. I installed solar 7 years ago and received a huge state incentive but between my house and business easily paid way more in electricity efficiency fund surcharges than I received for my panels.

That same fund is currently offering  a $10k rebate for insulation right now as well.


----------



## gthomas785 (Sep 27, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> In order to keep the snow off the roof there was zero insulation in the ceilings.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 27, 2022)

gthomas785 said:


>


I hope they don't have eves ...


----------



## Ashful (Sep 27, 2022)

Brian26 said:


> None of Massachusetts incentives are from federal money. Almost all of them are funded by energy efficiency surcharges on electric and gas bills. Here in CT something like 5% of your electric bill is to fund the energy efficiency fund. I installed solar 7 years ago and received a huge state incentive but between my house and business easily paid way more in electricity efficiency fund surcharges than I received for my panels.
> 
> That same fund is currently offering  a $10k rebate for insulation right now as well.


That's good info.  But changing the revenue stream doesn't actually change the reality of my second paragraph.

Stoveliker makes a good point, that you're paying less as an individual if a 5% tax on your electric bill is indeed the only revenue stream into that fund.  But of course that system could then not survive more than just a very small fraction of the population drawing from those funds, unless another revenue stream were to be added.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 27, 2022)

Historically, charging customers to fund efficiency programs did save rate payers money NET, bc it eliminated (or delayed) the need for building new expensive power plants.

No power is cheap power.


----------



## Brian26 (Oct 1, 2022)

Another unprecedented 160% electricity rate increase for Unitil customers in New Hampshire.

Unitil customers can expect a significant rate increase in December, if the utility’s Friday request is granted.

Unitil is asking to increase electric rates to 26 cents per kilowatt-hour, which would take effect on Dec. 1 and last for eight months. That’s a 160 percent increase from the current rate of 10 cents. A typical household can expect its bill to increase 75 to 78 percent, or $85 to $100 depending on energy use.

https://www.nhbr.com/unitil-seeks-160-rate-increase/


----------



## SpaceBus (Oct 1, 2022)

Maine has already gone up significantly, I hope it doesn't happen again.


----------



## Ashful (Oct 1, 2022)

The article wasn't clear, but based on the numbers and some of the other statements, I'm assuming this 160% increase is on the distribution fees only?  Still, 75 - 78% increase in the bill will break some budgets, if behavior and usage cannot adapt quickly enough.


----------



## SpaceBus (Oct 1, 2022)

Ashful said:


> The article wasn't clear, but based on the numbers and some of the other statements, I'm assuming this 160% increase is on the distribution fees only?  Still, 75 - 78% increase in the bill will break some budgets, if behavior and usage cannot adapt quickly enough.


Many people are already using as little power as possible, this will do more than break budgets.


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 1, 2022)

Its highly likely that the 161% is the utility standard offer supply portion of the bill. Firm natural gas prices for January are quite high for this upcoming winter, in some cases double or more than usual, since New England is overly dependent on natural gas and usually supplements with LNG from offshore, the utilities have to price in worse case gs prices.


----------



## Brian26 (Oct 1, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> All of New England will be seeing big increases as the region bet on natural gas 25 years ago. The only nuclear plants left are Millstone in CT and Seabrook in NH. Mass was hoping to get an additional hookup to Hydro Quebec via a new line in Maine but that is not happening for another year if ever. There is an approved and permitted project down through VT, but it was deemed too expensive by HQ, if the money thrown away on the NH project that failed and the Maine project that may fail were added up its looking like someone made a bad bet as the VT project would be on line by now. New England is supply limited for natural gas through the pipelines so any extra gas has to come from LNG. LNG is in great demand  now and more so this winter due to the Russian mess so New England will have a choice of heating homes or keeping the lights on. New England has very little gas storage due to the local geology.


Looks like CT's deal a few years ago with Millstone paid off. They signed a long term power contract that raised rates but looks like it paid off. 

CT somehow has some of the cheapest electricity in New England right now.



Just two years after a state contract to buy power from the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford led to a surge in summer electric rates, that same contract is a major factor behind a significant drop in rates slated to take effect in September.

Adjusted rates that PURA approved last week are expected to save the average residential Eversource electric customer about $9.78 per month, and $7.72 a month for United Illuminating customers.

That cost savings is driven by the millions of dollars the electric companies saved by buying power from Millstone and the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant at rates that are now below the market average in New England.

From January through June, Eversource benefited to the tune of $210 million, while the United Illuminating benefit totaled $46.3 million, from state’s contracts with Millstone and Seabrook, the companies told PURA.









						Controversial Millstone Guarantees Pay Dividends for Customers With Drop in Electric Rates
					

Just two years after a state contract to buy power from the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford led to a surge in summer electric rates, that same contract is a major factor behind a significant drop in rates slated to take effect in September. Adjusted rates that PURA approved last...




					ctexaminer.com


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 1, 2022)

I assume those are generation prices @Brian26.  I'm paying 8.4 cents for supply, just down the road from you.  And 5.5 cents for distribution.


----------



## Ashful (Oct 1, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I assume those are generation prices @Brian26.  I'm paying 8.4 cents for supply, just down the road from you.  And 5.5 cents for distribution.


PPL or PECO?


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 1, 2022)

Ashful said:


> PPL or PECO?


PECO.


----------



## ABMax24 (Oct 1, 2022)

Our current regulated rates are:

31.68¢ /kwh
$61.57/month fixed fees

That same 893kwh/month in the above post would be $344.47 plus another $17.22 in tax (GST).

There are currently rebates at $1/watt for solar, plus interest free loans available to homeowners through the Federal Government.

Solar PV makes sense here.


----------



## Brian26 (Oct 2, 2022)

ABMax24 said:


> Our current regulated rates are:
> 
> 31.68¢ /kwh
> $61.57/month fixed fees
> ...


Wow. Didn't realize electricity costs are that high in Canada. You guys don't have access to Hydro Quebec's cheap power @ 6 cents a kwh?

6.319¢/kWh for energy consumed up to 40 kWh per day times the number of days in the consumption period (1st tier)

9.749¢/kWh for the remaining energy consumed (2nd tier)

We do not bill based on your daily consumption. We take into account your total consumption during the consumption period, which is more beneficial for you.

For example, if your consumption period covers 62 days, 2,480 kWh (40 kWh per day × 62 days = 2,480 kWh) will be billed at the first-tier price. Any remaining energy consumption will be billed using the second-tier price

Our rates for residential customers are indeed the lowest in North America. For over 50 years, electricity prices in Québec have increased more or less at the same rate as inflation.


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 2, 2022)

Hydro Quebec is a very special case, not many places in the world these days that could effectively seize millions of acres of aboriginal land and dedicate it to hydroelectric production to the detriment of the tribes that still live there. If you look at the amount of area impacted by the big HQ project in Northern Quebec it occupies, it is roughly equivalent to starting at the NY Mass Border all the way to the far eastern tip of Maine. That used to be commonplace but obviously looked at differently these days. HQ is the 2000 pound gorilla of the Province of Quebec politics for decades. The deal was as long as the folks who live in areas of Quebec with power lines get cheap power, they could do what they wanted. If a politician wanted to get elected, they had better keep on the good side of HQ. HQ just got bigger and bigger and how they did it was build power projects. The problem was, the demand in the province was not there and in order to keep building power plants they needed bigger markets that were willing to pay more. Nova Scotia and NB bet on coal plants and some hydro and a nuke but HQ is all in on hydro.  The ratepayers in Quebec will scream loudly if their cheap hydro goes away so they have encouraged HQ to expand outside their borders. 

Up until recently the New England states have not treated HQ as "green" due to legacy of how the dams were built, therefore not a lot of it made its way south and it competed with fossil generation. VT had a similar treatment of HQ power until several years ago when the VT Yankee power plant shut down. Over the years one or two of the large utilities in VT got bought out by Canadian firms and they needed to sell non fossil power to keep the locals happy in VT. So at the last hours of a legislative session prior to the Christmas Holiday with little debate VT changed HQ power from no better than any other carbon emitting generation to "green". The same process has occurred in Mass. Mass used to get a lot of power from VT Yankee and also wanted the Pilgrom Nuke gone plus Salem wanted Brayton point coal plant gone so Mass needed a new source of green power preferably not in their backyard. HQ was waiting in the background and offered "clean green" HQ hydro but Mass had the same ban on HQ power being treated as green. A few years after VT made the switch, Mass do so to and bet their renewable plan on getting rid of fossil generation for a large part on HQ power. The problem was HQ was greedy and wanted to get transmission lines built that they could control through Me, NH or VT. VT actually approved and permitted a mostly underwater line down Lake Champlain and then into NH to tie into mostly existing grid infrastructure. They made sure the locals were compensated fairly for the line going through the state, so it was a win/win. It was also expensive and controlled by the ISO NE grid, not HQ, so HQ went shopping for cheaper alternatives. They thought they found one in NH for a lot less to be built by Eversource but after 5 years of trying Eversource couldn't get a state permit after a lot of grass roots opposition and spent around $100 million on the failed effort. HQ then went shopping to CMP in Maine and to date despite three years of trying and partial at risk construction the state of Maine voters have voted for  two citizen referendums to stop it (both thrown out by courts) and another lawsuit where the state legislature violated state law signing away rights they could not sign away to public land for the project unless there was a 2/3rd majority vote (that did not occur). The new line was supposed to be online by the spring of 23 and the way it's looking the court cases will still be on going and there is at least another season of construction. 

The joke is HQ will not actually guarantee the power is actual hydro. After a big ice storm in 1998 there was a problem that Quebec was too dependent on hydro power from Northern Quebec  (long transmission lines got ice up and broke) so they needed new generation quick. They signed a deal with a private firm to build a 600 MW gas plant in Three Rivers Quebec. They signed a "take or pay" contract with the developer which guarantees the developer payments whether the plant runs or not. Since they prefer to use hydro, that new plant has sat for a long time and has been an embarrassment for HQ to pay for a power plant not to run. It turns out if they sell power to New England, it will probably justify running the plant. HQ will then on paper sell the natural gas generated power to Quebec customers and then sell the same amount of power to New England as "green" at a high price since they do not get premium for green power in Quebec. For those who are aware of three card monte, HQ is trying to pull one off on a long scale worth billions, billions that should be spent on real renewable power projects and just as important energy conservation.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 2, 2022)

Fascinating @peakbagger as usual.  But this just reinforces my 30,000' view that the utilities and the politicians in New England are in bed together and totally corrupt, and THIS is why New England pays 2X as much for power as the rest of the lower 48 (outside of NYC).

Both the politician and the utilities will explain that the lack of transmission/pipelines/generation is due to NIMBYs.  I think that it is easy to limit or kill such projects and make it look like that.  And ofc Eversource was playing games with reserving the gas pipelines during prior polar vortex events, and then canceling the res at the last minute (completely legal) limiting gas flow through the pipelines to well below their capacity!

Enron had nothing on them.

And the legacy of this corruption and profiteering is a large and populous portion of the country that is and will be deeply resistant to electrification of home heating or EVs.  And rightly so, given that its hard to argue with a wallet.

Yankees... if you want to be green, you need to start with your politicos.  Passing sweeping climate bills with your current rate structure just funnels all that govt incentive money back to the utilities and their shills.


----------



## ABMax24 (Oct 2, 2022)

Brian26 said:


> Wow. Didn't realize electricity costs are that high in Canada. You guys don't have access to Hydro Quebec's cheap power @ 6 cents a kwh?
> 
> 6.319¢/kWh for energy consumed up to 40 kWh per day times the number of days in the consumption period (1st tier)
> 
> ...



No, as the crow flies I am 2100 miles from Montreal. Cross country HVDC powerlines have been proposed in the past, and Quebec generally shuts down the idea quickly due to their inherent desire to always disproportionally benefit from the profit of such a project. Simply put, Quebec usually refuses to play ball with the rest of Canada.

Until recently our electricity prices were much more normal, but a rapid transition from coal to more expensive natural gas, and a lack of new generation capacity have caused these high rates. We do have many renewable projects on the books, including wind farms, solar PV, small geothermal, and even pumped hydro storage, but this will still take years to establish. We have the fastest growing solar industry in Canada, our installed solar PV capacity has almost tripled in the last year.


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 2, 2022)

New England just jumped on the EAP Clean Power Plan early via the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI aka "reggy"). The last administration stopped that plan. Had CPP been in place, New England would not need to do much versus other parts of the country, some with very cheap power, would have needed to spend billions and see massive increases in rates as they are coal and fossil driven. PA just happens to be sitting on the Marcellus so they have cheap natural gas readily available and no reason not to burn it. Put in carbon regs and then PJM is in the same place as New England but in serious need of catch up. 

Its not that New England has expensive power, its just partially taxing carbon via reggy while other parts of the country are not. The problem is with no nationwide carbon disincentive, the areas that do price in carbon are getting whacked by areas who do not. Its pay me now or pay me later.  It's easy to talk green but when it comes to paying up for it, for many it is easier to vote in politicians that will lie to voters that there is no global warming. Take a look at the areas where Trump did the best and they are areas with high fossil generation percentages.  That is not a coincidence.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 2, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> New England just jumped on the EAP Clean Power Plan early via the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI aka "reggy"). The last administration stopped that plan. Had CPP been in place, New England would not need to do much versus other parts of the country, some with very cheap power, would have needed to spend billions and see massive increases in rates as they are coal and fossil driven. PA just happens to be sitting on the Marcellus so they have cheap natural gas readily available and no reason not to burn it. Put in carbon regs and then PJM is in the same place as New England but in serious need of catch up.
> 
> Its not that New England has expensive power, its just partially taxing carbon via reggy while other parts of the country are not. The problem is with no nationwide carbon disincentive, the areas that do price in carbon are getting whacked by areas who do not. Its pay me now or pay me later.  It's easy to talk green but when it comes to paying up for it, for many it is easier to vote in politicians that will lie to voters that there is no global warming. Take a look at the areas where Trump did the best and they are areas with high fossil generation percentages.  That is not a coincidence.



I think we can both be onto something here...  We agree that midwesterners are burning a lot of coal.   But is PA an outlier bc of shale gas?  Or is New England an outlier?

We can look at the data by subregion:  https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/

Basically, the New England sub-region makes electricity at 0.528 lbCO2/kWh, with 54% being fossil generated.

The PA/mid-atlantic sub-region makes electricity at 0.652 lbCO2/kWh, with 59% being fossil generated.

Continuing down the coast the Virginia/Carolina region makes electricity at 0.623 lbCO2/kWh, with 52% being fossil generated.

The US figure is 0.818 lbCO2/kWh, with 61% being fossil generated.

These three Atlantic regions are doing better emission-wise than the US as a whole,  and have similar fractions of fossil energy on their grids.  New England has more wind and solar than the other two, and fewer nukes.

And yet one of these regions has power 2X as expensive as the others.  And expensive nat gas too, IIRC.  And uses oil for residential space heating far more than any other region in the US (no doubt as a result of the expensive kWh and gas).

If the difference is due to carbon taxation, it has yet to manifest as a dramatically greener grid.

The green energy policy decisions in New England remind of those in Germany... expensive, ill-advised and resulting in poorer energy security and higher prices.  Including shutting down existing nuke plants (?) and expensive solar installs (which are justified by expensive grid kWh).

We agree (I assume) that all these regions will have to build out massive amounts of new wind and solar to green their grids in the future.  But with RE prices falling, it makes $$$ sense to not be an early adopter in this space (as Germany was).


----------



## SpaceBus (Oct 2, 2022)

Part of the space heating with oil in NE is because it's pretty cold here. Electric radiant heat is super expensive compared even to oil fired radiant heat. Then there is the "cultural" attitude towards heat pumps.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 2, 2022)

SpaceBus said:


> Part of the space heating with oil in NE is because it's pretty cold here. Electric radiant heat is super expensive compared even to oil fired radiant heat. Then there is the "cultural" attitude towards heat pumps.



I get that.... similar or colder northern areas in the US heat with nat gas or propane.  And while Northern New England is certainly cold, most of the population south of Boston has winter temps within a 2-4°F of my location on any given day.


----------



## SpaceBus (Oct 2, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I get that.... similar or colder northern areas in the US heat with nat gas or propane.  And while Northern New England is certainly cold, most of the population south of Boston has winter temps within a 2-4°F of my location on any given day.


I didn't realize Boston was also so reliant on oil for space heating.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 2, 2022)

Mass is #2 in HHO consumption, CT is #4 and ME is #5.  https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/heating-oil/use-of-heating-oil.php

So much for my theory:  NY is #1 and PA is #3.  I suppose given their population, the incidence in NY and PA is lower.


----------



## stoveliker (Oct 2, 2022)

Oil is first also for long island. And we're definitely south of Boston. And warmer.


----------



## Ashful (Oct 2, 2022)

I always thought an area’s propensity toward oil was more the result of when homes were built, than anything else.  Houses built in the northeast in the 1940’s and 1950’s, in areas not served by nat.gas, generally got oil fed hydronic.  If said house had air conditioning added in the 1970’s or 1980’s, it likely kept its oil hydronic, as heat pumps pretty much sucked back then.  After that, momentum tends to keep one on the systems they have.  

The number of new oil installs around here is near zero, nearly all new homes are heat pumps, of various sorts.  Likewise, older houses adding AC cooling for the first time today are more likely to do a full conversion to heat pump, versus the majority who may have done it 30-40 years ago, and kept their oil-fired boiler or furnace.


----------



## gthomas785 (Oct 3, 2022)

In Massachusetts, unless you live in an area that has piped natural gas, heating oil is by far the cheapest option. Propane is almost twice the cost per BTU and electric is probably 3x. Heat pumps are still viewed by most people as a new thing that doesn't really work in our climate, and with the high electric rates even running a heat pump doesn't save you any money unless your COP is more than 3.

We happen to live on a larger road that had gas put in in the 90s, but most of my town and the surrounding areas do heat with oil.


----------



## EbS-P (Oct 3, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I always thought an area’s propensity toward oil was more the result of when homes were built, than anything else.  Houses built in the northeast in the 1940’s and 1950’s, in areas not served by nat.gas, generally got oil fed hydronic.  If said house had air conditioning added in the 1970’s or 1980’s, it likely kept its oil hydronic, as heat pumps pretty much sucked back then.  After that, momentum tends to keep one on the systems they have.
> 
> The number of new oil installs around here is near zero, nearly all new homes are heat pumps, of various sorts.  Likewise, older houses adding AC cooling for the first time today are more likely to do a full conversion to heat pump, versus the majority who may have done it 30-40 years ago, and kept their oil-fired boiler or furnace.


Figure the new tax credits will push many towards Heatpumps.


gthomas785 said:


> In Massachusetts, unless you live in an area that has piped natural gas, heating oil is by far the cheapest option. Propane is almost twice the cost per BTU and electric is probably 3x. Heat pumps are still viewed by most people as a new thing that doesn't really work in our climate, and with the high electric rates even running a heat pump doesn't save you any money unless your COP is more than 3.
> 
> We happen to live on a larger road that had gas put in in the 90s, but most of my town and the surrounding areas do heat with oil.


Is  the average annual number of hours spent below 17 degrees F a published statistic?     Really I think this is where your COP starts to take a huge hit with the new cold weather heatpump tech.   My warm weather 2008 technology heatpump has a COP of 2.55 at 17 F.


----------



## gthomas785 (Oct 3, 2022)

I don't know if it's published but I can tell you it's not an insignificant number of hours. In January there are a few weeks when you'd be lucky to break a daily high of 20F.
Cop of 2.55 is a no go. Needs to be higher.


----------



## EbS-P (Oct 3, 2022)

gthomas785 said:


> I don't know if it's published but I can tell you it's not an insignificant number of hours. In January there are a few weeks when you'd be lucky to break a daily high of 20F.
> Cop of 2.55 is a no go. Needs to be higher.


Are there units with a COP17 higher than 2.5?   I really think without the data we are just guessing that a COP17 less than 3 doesn’t make cents.


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 3, 2022)

At least in New England there was no historical source of local natural gas.  Long range transmission of natural gas was not practical due to lack of a high pressure natural gas transmission system. Many of New England urban areas relied on coal gas for lighting and every large population center would have coal gas works where gas was produced. The coal gas was then distributed locally. It produced a lot of toxic waste and the legacy of a coal gas plant is usually a toxic waste site on a waterfront site or near an inland railhead.  Nevertheless, there was demand for coal gas in homes as it burned cleaner than kerosene for lighting and possibly cooking and there were low pressure gas networks installed in the more prosperous towns/cities. Coal gas was typically not used for heating, it was expensive compared to coal. Electricity mostly replaced the demand for lighting and slowly some natural gas made it to the area to replace coal gas and some coal fueled homes switched to natural gas as long as the infrastructure was in the street. The old pipelines were leaky, the utility would drive up and down the streets looking for leaks and it was easy to locate a gas line due to the row of patches in the street. A lot of those systems were 100 years old and it was not usual to see dead trees and landscaping where a hard to find gas leak was killing the plants. In some systems, the quantity of gas that was sold to customers would be 40% less than the gas going in the system. 

Glacial action in Northern New England over the underlying granite effectively scraped the tops of mountains and deposited them in low spots except at the coast which is marine clay deposited during times of higher sea level The material filling the low spots is glacial till mostly boulders and rocks with voids filled by finely ground clay. Building local underground distribution systems was very expensive except in the coastal areas with marine clay or gravel. Head inland where glacial till and shallow solid ledge is frequent along with lower housing densities and it never made sense to install natural gas piping for residential.  Therefore, the heating fuels of choice was coal imported in from other areas of the country or wood. Compared to wood, coal is a higher density fuel preprocessed into uniform size and capable of being automatically fed into a boiler on larger systems. Far easier than dealing with wood, so if someone was prosperous in a dense city they had coal heating with the country folks burning locally sourced wood (vast quantities). Heating oil really came in as replacement for coal, many older homes had coal boilers converted to heating oil. When the post WW2 housing boom came in, heating oil systems took up far less room than coal and far cheaper so they made sense for new housing tracts.  Delivering oil is far cleaner and less labor intensive plus no need to dispose of coal ash. They were also perceived as safer. My mom would not even consider gas in our house as houses that burn gas did explode on occasion partially due to the local gas network being ancient. Even if a house did not have gas currently, some older homes had at one time had gas lines into the buildings and on occasion gas leaks in the street would find its way into those homes with no active gas and explode. The Maine Oll dealers were sure to stoke the hysteria and would on occasion make sure pictures of homes that exploded were well promoted in the news.

Natural Gas really only expanded into the northern New England when oil prices went up after the oil embargo and gas transmission networks were beefed up. The problem is natural gas pricing was regulated and drilling or actively collecting natural gas was not real profitable. The clean air act also increased demand for natural gas to the point where the US predicted a major shortage. The US at one point banned all new natural gas power generation and banned the use of outdoor gas lighting.  That ban was in place about a decade until natural gas was deregulated and rapidly rising oil prices raised the price of gas so that it was worth actively drilling for it and collecting it instead of flaring. So the supply went up but it still had to get to end of the pipeline in New England. There were hopes that the Sable Island gas field in Nova Scotia would start pumping gas in from the east and the pipeline capacity was increased to support it but the field fizzled.

 A new gas transmission line went by my area 25 years ago in Northern NH, they were in rush to get it permitted and build it. The original engineering company went cheap on test borings and underestimated the amount of ledge requiring blasting and hard rock tunneling under rivers. Reportedly the amount of explosives used was 4 times what had been estimated. That line supplied gas from the Canadian west and no doubt some Marcellus taking the long way around. It does not have any compressor stations in the US as the developer did not want to wait to permit them. If they were added, the capacity would go up 30%. The owner has gone out for proposals a couple of times for  a willing buyer, but no party will sign a long term firm gas contract to pay for the upgrade even when the news is crying gas shortage in New England. The con is a lot of the hype about gas shortage in New England is really the hype that there is shortage of Marcellus gas directly into the region bypassing Canada as it is an incredibly potential profitable market for Marcellus producers. The cost of one LNG plant for sending Gas overseas would cost more than building new pipelines to New England with a far more predictable market ( I think it costs $3 per therm to turn it into liquidand then revaporize it) 

Ultimately the "gas bubble" where numerous large gas fired combined cycle power plants got built in New England bumped up gas capacity into the region somewhat before various national and regional environmental organizations figured out that the only way to throttle new natural gas generation is to stop new pipelines and they have been very successful in doing so.


----------



## stoveliker (Oct 3, 2022)

re:cop at 17 F above 2.5. Yes. Quite a few. Some also above 3.
Of course depending on output.



			https://neep.org/sites/default/files/ColdClimateAir-SourceHeatPumpSpecificationProductListing-Updated11.30.18.xlsx


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 3, 2022)

BTW, I never can find that NEEP site when I look for it, this is the URL https://ashp.neep.org/#!/product_list/

Contrary to the recent article in the Maine papers, I hear a lot of real world complaints about very cold weather performance of cold climate minisplits. No doubt the output does not match the heating demand at very cold temps for many installations including my own.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

You guys are making my point for me.  Massachusetts is trying very hard to be green, which is laudable, but the 2X cost of electricity is a huge albatross around its neck.

Southern New England not having a lot of Heat Pumps is not a tech issue or a culture issue... its a cost issue!
Folks cross shopping a Prius versus a BEV get a whole different answer relative to the rest of the lower 48... the Prius is cheaper!

And thus two big things that need to be done on the road to electrifying the country... both are a full stop.

Silver lining of $$$ kWh... it makes more sense to do rooftop solar (esp with incentives).  But rooftop solar is not super scalable to a final net zero grid, more of a niche contribution by a small subset of customers that can afford it.  And there is little pricing pressure (I would guess) with such good incentives, so the final systems are probably rather expensive compared to utility/grid solar.

And how many people put in a small solar system to fit their annual usage, without a heat pump or an EV?

And while the rest of the country is heated by Heat Pump, Nat gas or propane, Massachusetts is still locked into HHO, with >50% higher CO2 emissions per delivered BTU of nat gas.

I wonder how many of those MA houses will solar on the roof are still heating with oil?


----------



## gthomas785 (Oct 3, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I wonder how many of those MA houses will solar on the roof are still heating with oil?


My guess would be most of them. Even if you have "free" electricity, there's a cost to convert and most of the boilers / hydronic systems still have plenty of life in them.

It seems like the trend is that a lot of people who went solar in the last ~5 years also got a mini split or 2 at the same time hoping it would help with the heat. But the reality is that cold climate mini splits don't heat in the winter. Dec-Feb you run into either a capacity or operating cost issue. Oil by contrast is a well understood and reliable heat source no matter how cold it gets.
I have 2 mini spilts, they are great for supplementing the central / wood heat in the fall and spring, but nobody is running their heatpump year round. Once December comes it's time to fire up whatever heating system you already had, and for most people that's oil.


----------



## stoveliker (Oct 3, 2022)

I do the same. South of MA. I added solar, then minisplits a year later. I heat with them in shoulder season (as in possibly for the first time today; still very gusty and only 52 outside). The oil is still there - but I use wood, of course. It's a kind of insurance. I can run the oil boiler (hydronic heat) with my portable generator if for some reason both the power and the wood stove are out of order.


----------



## Garbanzo62 (Oct 3, 2022)

I am guessing that the Used Car Dealerships are Salivating at this law.  What will happen is people will buy a new car in CT, NH, RI or NY, Drive if for a few months and then sell it (probably at a profit) as used in MA. Demand for Gas powered vehicles will skyrocket.  Also, be prepared for a new Mileage Tax or increase in tolls. If the gas tax income drops due to increased EV usage, the money will have to come from someplace. Hence you will probably have to pay per mile driven.  Would love to see the court fight on that as people will claim that the miles were not driven in State and therefore should not be taxed.


----------



## EbS-P (Oct 3, 2022)

I’m not at all sold that mini splits are the single cheapest answer for heating but if they carry 75% of the heating load that a really big change in energy consumption.  

And to be honest I think the insulation retrofit industry should really come up with some better products.  I just listened to a podcast where a new construction house 4200 sq ft, built to be a net zero house, uses a 2 ton air sourced heat pump and has disabled the heat strips.    Yep 2100 sq ft per ton.  Old inefficient housing stock is an issue.


----------



## tlc1976 (Oct 3, 2022)

Garbanzo62 said:


> Also, be prepared for a new Mileage Tax or increase in tolls. If the gas tax income drops due to increased EV usage, the money will have to come from someplace. Hence you will probably have to pay per mile driven.  Would love to see the court fight on that as people will claim that the miles were not driven in State and therefore should not be taxed.


I’m wondering how that will work as EVs get more popular. Currently only the gas powered vehicles are paying the road tax (at least here), but there aren’t enough EVs to make a dent. Using home power to charge an EV is basically the same as putting home heating oil in your diesel tank, which is illegal because it’s not taxed the same.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

gthomas785 said:


> My guess would be most of them. Even if you have "free" electricity, there's a cost to convert and most of the boilers / hydronic systems still have plenty of life in them.
> 
> It seems like the trend is that a lot of people who went solar in the last ~5 years also got a mini split or 2 at the same time hoping it would help with the heat. But the reality is that cold climate mini splits don't heat in the winter. Dec-Feb you run into either a capacity or operating cost issue. Oil by contrast is a well understood and reliable heat source no matter how cold it gets.
> I have 2 mini spilts, they are great for supplementing the central / wood heat in the fall and spring, but nobody is running their heatpump year round. Once December comes it's time to fire up whatever heating system you already had, and for most people that's oil.



I hear you.  I have a properly sized 4 ton, old-tech, single speed ASHP heating my 2400 sq ft house in a climate only a few degrees colder than Boston, and if I burn no wood, I use about 10,000 kWh per year.  At my 12 cents per kWh, this is a very reasonable $1200 per year.  I tore out my boiler years ago, but I would've probably needed about 500 gallons per year for heat.  So my HP cost the same as $2.40/gal oil.

And yeah, a minisplit would not heat my place.  Too small and crappy distribution.

IOW, in my climate, electrifying my heat and scrapping my boiler was no bigs, back in 2010!  And the difference between us is not that HPs don't work, its just that your electricity costs 2x mine.  That is all.

I looked at the latest, inverter drive 4 ton split systems (same tech as cold weather minis), and figured they would probably heat my place for 6000-7000 kWh, a considerable savings.  But not worth upgrading a $10k+ system to save $400 per year.

Fun fact, half of that $1200 bill is in January, bc that is when I call backup strips.  I burned about a face-cord of ash last January on colder days, and saved at least 2000 kWh.

The new tech HP system would not call the strips at all in my climate.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

tlc1976 said:


> I’m wondering how that will work as EVs get more popular. Currently only the gas powered vehicles are paying the road tax (at least here), but there aren’t enough EVs to make a dent. Using home power to charge an EV is basically the same as putting home heating oil in your diesel tank, which is illegal because it’s not taxed the same.



The fact is that the much hated gas tax is in fact too small to pay for road and bridge maintenance.  Infrastructure gets paid out of the state general budget and gets periodic bailouts from the Feds.  This is one reason why our infrastructure is in poor repair.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> I’m not at all sold that mini splits are the single cheapest answer for heating but if they carry 75% of the heating load that a really big change in energy consumption.
> 
> And to be honest I think the insulation retrofit industry should really come up with some better products.  I just listened to a podcast where a new construction house 4200 sq ft, built to be a net zero house, uses a 2 ton air sourced heat pump and has disabled the heat strips.    Yep 2100 sq ft per ton.  Old inefficient housing stock is an issue.



THIS.  Getting to net zero is not possible with our existing housing stock (without serious retrofitting), vehicles and rooftop solar.  With electric heat, I use 15,000 kWh per year in my all-electric house, and that array wouldn't fit on my roof, even if I didn't have a 100% shady lot.

The actual solution will require a nearly carbon free grid and electrifying everything AND a price comparable to my current price (10-15cents plus inflation) to make it attractive.  Solar and wind generation are already under a nickel per kWh, so that is not the problem.

But in Mass, as long as the electricity is expensive as it is, no one is gonna electrify anything.  And their rooftop solar is gonna be a drop in the bucket.

The big question here is why is not more renewable generation being developed in New England?  Given the high retail prices and the low cost f solar and wind, it seems that investors would be minting money.  One can talk about intermittency... but that is not a problem until 20% solar+wind at least,  which MA is nowhere near. THAT I expect is more a political and cultural issue than a technical one.


----------



## stoveliker (Oct 3, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> But in Mass, as long as the electricity is expensive as it is, no one is gonna electrify anything.  And their rooftop solar is gonna be a drop in the bucket.


For the grid, possibly. For the individual, it makes a lot larger dent than a drop in a bucket. With net metering it can completely fill the bucket.
Long Island is not cheap either per kWh. And that makes rooftop solar so attractive here. MA may be even better (or worse, depending on which side of the kWh $$ you are looking from).


----------



## EbS-P (Oct 3, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I hear you.  I have a properly sized 4 ton, old-tech, single speed ASHP heating my 2400 sq ft house in a climate only a few degrees colder than Boston, and if I burn no wood, I use about 10,000 kWh per year.  At my 12 cents per kWh, this is a very reasonable $1200 per year.  I tore out my boiler years ago, but I would've probably needed about 500 gallons per year for heat.  So my HP cost the same as $2.40/gal oil.
> 
> And yeah, a minisplit would not heat my place.  Too small and crappy distribution.
> 
> ...


Living in colder ( or hotter) climates is just going to be more expensive and our greener solutions may intact cost more than fossil fuel alternatives.  We all need to put a value on that cost for our own actions and be prepared for regulations to assign that cost


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> For the grid, possibly. For the individual, it makes a lot larger dent than a drop in a bucket. With net metering it can completely fill the bucket.
> Long Island is not cheap either per kWh. And that makes rooftop solar so attractive here. MA may be even better (or worse, depending on which side of the kWh $$ you are looking from).



I haven't seen many cases of folks managing all their electricity, space heating and vehicle EV miles in a single rooftop array on top of old construction housing.

And yeah, when I looked up kWh rates, I saw that LI looked like New England...  I am now lumping the two together in my brain.

I guess my point is that I think NE+LI is stuck in a 'energy is expensive, so renewable energy will be even more expensive' mindset.  Like in 2005 or something.  And 'Renewables are so expensive ofc they need subsidies and tax breaks'.  And that electrfying everything looks impossible.  Again, like 2005.

But I still haven't gotten a straight answer why electricity in NE+LI NEEDS to be so expensive.  OK, not enough gas pipelines to bring cheap gas in from PA?  We knew that 10 years ago, why weren't more built?  We know the gas pipelines were run way below capacity for years... has that been fixed?  We know that utility solar is waaaay cheaper than MA retail, why is more not being built?   And we know that MA has a great offshore wind resource... and after the Kennedys got done, the next deal was negotiated for a 30 cent/kWh price and got killed by a whistleblower.

The answer always seems to be a utility exec, and a politician pointing the finger at each other or the famous NIMBY.

Meanwhile, the generators and utilities are raking it in.  Very Suss.

And now the MA politicos are passing a new climate bill... I don't want to be cynical but I can't wait until they use THAT as justification for hiking MA power even more.

And all the while folks will keep buying ICE cars and installing oil burners... bc the other options don't make financial sense (despite making sense in the rest of the country).


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> Living in colder ( or hotter) climates is just going to be more expensive and our greener solutions may intact cost more than fossil fuel alternatives.  We all need to put a value on that cost for our own actions and be prepared for regulations to assign that cost



I disagree.  Now that solar and wind are cheap, and Heat Pumps are getting better, and EVs are getting better and cheaper... I reject the idea that a green solution HAS to be more expensive than a fossil one.  

The fossil cos have been feeding us that malarckey for decades, and saying being green is something for rich people to do.  Not any more.


----------



## stoveliker (Oct 3, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I haven't seen many cases of folks managing all their electricity, space heating and vehicle EV miles in a single rooftop array on top of old construction housing.


I do. (no EV though, yet). No battery. Net metering. So not (!) off the grid. Using grid power at night. But producing (more than) all kWhs that I use in a year. (And so have room for an EV in the future.)
My heating is not full time electric though: minisplit in shoulder season (started heating today)+stove (when it's T<40F for t>24 hrs).  


woodgeek said:


> But I still haven't gotten a straight answer why electricity in NE+LI NEEDS to be so expensive.


Don't we all want to know...


----------



## gthomas785 (Oct 3, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> a few degrees colder than Boston


Just a note that Boston is significantly (5-10 degrees) warmer than most of New England in the winter due to its maritime location


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 3, 2022)

Prior to my plug in Prime I was covering all my electric demand with extra to run a minisplit with about 4.6 KW of panels. That would definitely fit on my roof. I have an oversized solar hot water system that is occupying a lot of space on the roof so that would probably need to go or one of two panels removed as it generates far more hot water than I will ever use. The plug in Rav 4 would probably cut into my minisplit use to keep me neutral. I think it would be a big challenge to deal with a full EV unless it is for someone like a retired person who does not have a daily commute, then again I have helped someone building a near net zero ranch with a 60 foot long by 20 foot deep roof on the south exposure so he could pack a lot of panels (Definitely was a big job to cover it with shingles). I think most full EV owners end up adding an array on a garage roof, a ground mount or a carport like structure they can use for cover and storage with PV on the roof. That only works in the suburbs (without HOAs) Big cities near the coast will probably have to reply on offshore wind (currently 10 years out in most of New England) to supplement solar.  

If you look at typical EU new building standards, they are far stricter than the US as energy was expensive long before Ukraine got in the news. Cheap houses generally are not built, land and taxes are expensive so in most cases middle income folks live in apartments.


----------



## stoveliker (Oct 3, 2022)

I don't think one can describe "Europe" like that. Building standards are far stricter, but home types vary far too much to result in a meaningful average. I was surprised by that statement (given what I know from my old country), so I looked it up.









						This is the most popular type of home in Europe right now
					

Research shines a light on housing across the European Union. A majority live in houses rather than flats – but there’s an underlying housing crisis going on.




					www.weforum.org


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

gthomas785 said:


> Just a note that Boston is significantly (5-10 degrees) warmer than most of New England in the winter due to its maritime location


Of course, but on a population weighted basis, not as much as you would think.  Many people live near the coast.


----------



## gthomas785 (Oct 3, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Of course, but on a population weighted basis, not as much as you would think.  Many people live near the coast.


Okay but those locations also have natural gas


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

gthomas785 said:


> Okay but those locations also have natural gas


Not where I grew up, or where any of my siblings have lived.


----------



## tlc1976 (Oct 3, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> The fact is that the much hated gas tax is in fact too small to pay for road and bridge maintenance.  Infrastructure gets paid out of the state general budget and gets periodic bailouts from the Feds.  This is one reason why our infrastructure is in poor repair.


That’s true. The only way we got any roads fixed was to adopt local millages.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

I really don't mean to beat up on Mass or New England folks.  I think folks there are trying to do the right (and affordable) thing given some real chit choices by their utilities and their utility regulators, who have made some rather bad (or corrupt?) decisions historically.  And painted the industry there into a corner that is rather far from the electrification direction that the US needs to go in.  

I mostly think its sad, and fear the result is that Mass will ultimately bring up the rear on green tech.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 3, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> ...I think most full EV owners end up adding an array on a garage roof, a ground mount or a carport like structure they can use for cover and storage with PV on the roof. That only works in the suburbs (without HOAs) Big cities near the coast will probably have to reply on offshore wind (currently 10 years out in most of New England) to supplement solar.



Of course, utility solar is far cheaper than rooftop, so if there is not enough roof space, any open land in the exurbs will do as well.  Offshore wind will be helpful for winter electrification needs, but I expect that will get developed off DE, NJ and LI before it comes to Mass at scale.  But I'd be happy to be wrong about that.


----------



## ABMax24 (Oct 3, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I disagree.  Now that solar and wind are cheap, and Heat Pumps are getting better, and EVs are getting better and cheaper... I reject the idea that a green solution HAS to be more expensive than a fossil one.
> 
> The fossil cos have been feeding us that malarckey for decades, and saying being green is something for rich people to do.  Not any more.



Find me a renewable energy system that can heat my house cheaper than natural gas can, I will buy it right now.


----------



## stoveliker (Oct 3, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Of course, utility solar is far cheaper than rooftop, so if there is not enough roof space, any open land in the exurbs will do as well.  Offshore wind will be helpful for winter electrification needs, but I expect that will get developed off DE, NJ and LI before it comes to Mass at scale.  But I'd be happy to be wrong about that.



Again, that depends on who you are asking. Grid (or utility scale) you are right. For the individual, not so much. In fact people pay on average MORE for "green" energy delivered thru a utility.


----------



## Tithis (Oct 4, 2022)

ABMax24 said:


> Find me a renewable energy system that can heat my house cheaper than natural gas can, I will buy it right now.



Its going to depend on your local utility rates and solar incentives

For me here in Mass IF I could get gas it would be around $.92 per therm.
Tesla gives an estimate of $10,743 for a 7.2KW system after tax credits. The PVWatts calculator gives an estimated yearly output of 9,329kwh. From there you can do some simple calculations to get a rough cost per kwh over the systems life. From what I've read 20 years is a reasonable amount of time to keep a solar panel install. We have net metering so excess power I make in the summer gets me credits that I can use to cover my heating in winter.

9,329kwh * 20years  = 186,580kwh
$10,743/186,580kwh = ~$.058/kwh.

I currently have a 4 ton Bosch central heat pump paired with a 97% efficient furnace (running off propane, but we'll say its gas)
1 therm is equal to 99976.1 BTUs and burned in my furnace that sends 96977 BTUs into my ductwork.

My heatpumps output and power requirements across multiple indoor and outdoor temperatures is documented. All of the following are assuming an internal air temp of 70f. The following is the BTUs per KWH the system can output at different outdoor temperatures.

@47f: 46,700btu / 3.63kwh = 12865 btu/kwh
@32f: 44,600btu / 4.59kwh = 9716 btu/kwh
@17f: 41,000btu / 5.02kwh = 8167 btu/kwh
@5f: 35,000btu / 4.93kwh = 7099 btu/kwh

Then the cost in electricity to match that 1 therm of gas.

@47f:  7.54kwh * $.058/kwh = $.43355
@32f:  9.98kwh * $.058/kwh= $.57385
@17f:   11.87kwh * $.058/kwh = $.682525
@5f:   13.66kwh * $.058/kwh = $.78545

Then keep in mind my central heatpump is not as efficient as some of the ductless minisplit systems out there. These costs could go down further if you were using some of the Hi2 ductless pumps from Mitsubishi (might get one for the finished room over my detached garage)


----------



## Ashful (Oct 4, 2022)

Tithis said:


> Then keep in mind my central heatpump is not as efficient as some of the ductless minisplit systems out there. These costs could go down further if you were using some of the Hi2 ductless pumps from Mitsubishi (might get one for the finished room over my detached garage)


I have one in a finished room above my garage, used as a music studio, and it has been ideal in this application.  I installed a wireless wall thermostat with auto-changeover function, so it automatically toggles from heating to cooling as needed, to keep sensitive musical instruments in an acceptable temperature range without my intervention.  Rooms above garages can swing frequently from cold to hot, depending on solar, vehicle usage, etc.

My room is only 260 sq.ft. with one window, one door, and double doors into an adjacent attic space.  I could get the sizing on my system, if you were looking for a reference point.


----------



## Ashful (Dec 13, 2022)

I had NBC Nightly News on while working last night, and a story came up that made me remember this thread.  Specifically:



Brian26 said:


> National Grid customers in Massachusetts are getting one hell of a rate increase.  Looks like its going from .30 kwh to .49 kwh?
> 
> Many Mass. Customers Will See a 64% Increase in Their Electric Bills This Winter





Brian26 said:


> Another unprecedented 160% electricity rate increase for Unitil customers in New Hampshire.
> 
> Unitil customers can expect a significant rate increase in December, if the utility’s Friday request is granted.
> 
> ...





SpaceBus said:


> Maine has already gone up significantly, I hope it doesn't happen again.



So, the story on the news was a family who had just purchased two new EV's to replace their ICE's.  The guy had done a spreadsheet calculating cost of ownership, to justify the 35%'ish higher cost of the EV's they were considering versus the ICE's in the same class, based on fuel savings versus electric utility rates.  But it looked to me like he was using pretty optimistic numbers for his electric utility pricing over the ~10 years they might own these vehicles.  I am not sure that he planned for ANY rate increase, let alone one of the scale some of you are posting.

I wonder how many buyers, doing the same math based on today's pricing, are going to have their quick math blown out of the water when their electric rates jump up by 64% to 160%?


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 13, 2022)

This option is looking a lot better these days  I have actually upgraded to a 240 Volt EVSEsince then and upgraded the solar panel mounts, but this is a better picture.


----------



## Ashful (Dec 13, 2022)

That is so cool, peakbagger!  Love the engineering.

But what's that rig doing to your TCO?  How does this translate to the average commuter, who's not building their own solar charging trailer?


----------



## begreen (Dec 13, 2022)

Solar went in at our house in 2011, a couple of years before we got the Volt. A second array went in around 2015.


----------



## Ashful (Dec 13, 2022)

begreen said:


> Solar went in at our house in 2011, a couple of years before we got the Volt. A second array went in around 2015.


I did a cost analysis for an uncle earlier this year, on a solar installation.  I just couldn't make the numbers work, in terms of ROI.  If I assumed he'd replace each of his (presently mostly nat.gas) appliances with the best electric alternatives (eg. HPWH, induction range, etc.) on their typical predicted lifetime schedules, I could only get a payback of 13 years if I ignored the reality of inflation.  If I included even 2-3% inflation, the ROI was "never".   I had PM'd the spreadsheet over to @woodgeek for a sanity check, and he pretty much agreed with the analysis.

BUT, I don't believe I had included a BEV in that analysis, and even if I did, I might not have predicted the gasoline price futures accurately.  Likely not a factor in the analysis I was doing, since my uncle is retired and not racking up sufficient mileage to be a significant factor, but it'd be interesting to see if BEV's can finally make residential solar pay off for those with higher mileage.

I really doubt it will, if the BEV is away at the office during peak solar generation hours, unless we factor net metering or other local storage (additional cost).


----------



## stoveliker (Dec 13, 2022)

So, your calculations are without net metering? (As in: none of my kWhs get lost, I get to use all of them for I believe 18 years - the meter just runs backwards.)


----------



## begreen (Dec 13, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I did a cost analysis for an uncle earlier this year, on a solar installation.  I just couldn't make the numbers work, in terms of ROI.  If I assumed he'd replace each of his (presently mostly nat.gas) appliances with the best electric alternatives (eg. HPWH, induction range, etc.) on their typical predicted lifetime schedules, I could only get a payback of 13 years if I ignored the reality of inflation.  If I included even 2-3% inflation, the ROI was "never".   I had PM'd the spreadsheet over to @woodgeek for a sanity check, and he pretty much agreed with the analysis.
> 
> BUT, I don't believe I had included a BEV in that analysis, and even if I did, I might not have predicted the gasoline price futures accurately.  Likely not a factor in the analysis I was doing, since my uncle is retired and not racking up sufficient mileage to be a significant factor, but it'd be interesting to see if BEV's can finally make residential solar pay off for those with higher mileage.
> 
> I really doubt it will, if the BEV is away at the office during peak solar generation hours, unless we factor net metering or other local storage (additional cost).


Yes, the ROI varies from state to state and util. co to utility depending on incentives. I seem to recall New Jersey having some really good incentives but haven't looked into this for several years.

Our system was expensive because it had to be made of WA state components to get the highest returns. We ended up getting a sales tax exemption and  $0.54/kwH annual refund, plus net metering rate at $0.10/kWh due to being early adopters. This program ended in 2020. Now we get a flat $0.16/kWh on a second program for net metering, but the equipment has paid for itself.  Economically, we bank up solar during the spring through fall, and spend it in the winter.


----------



## EbS-P (Dec 13, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I did a cost analysis for an uncle earlier this year, on a solar installation.  I just couldn't make the numbers work, in terms of ROI.  If I assumed he'd replace each of his (presently mostly nat.gas) appliances with the best electric alternatives (eg. HPWH, induction range, etc.) on their typical predicted lifetime schedules, I could only get a payback of 13 years if I ignored the reality of inflation.  If I included even 2-3% inflation, the ROI was "never".   I had PM'd the spreadsheet over to @woodgeek for a sanity check, and he pretty much agreed with the analysis.
> 
> BUT, I don't believe I had included a BEV in that analysis, and even if I did, I might not have predicted the gasoline price futures accurately.  Likely not a factor in the analysis I was doing, since my uncle is retired and not racking up sufficient mileage to be a significant factor, but it'd be interesting to see if BEV's can finally make residential solar pay off for those with higher mileage.
> 
> I really doubt it will, if the BEV is away at the office during peak solar generation hours, unless we factor net metering or other local storage (additional cost).


For BEV to be figured in the size for an average 2.5 car  is probably as big as the roof


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 13, 2022)

Ashful said:


> That is so cool, peakbagger!  Love the engineering.
> 
> But what's that rig doing to your TCO?  How does this translate to the average commuter, who's not building their own solar charging trailer?


I didnt build it, I let Bershire Hathaway and Progressive Insurance pay for most of the new cost. Reportedly they were billed 150K for each trailer. I missed the auctions during Covid but reportedly some sold for 5K, I paid 20K from someone who bought six. The parts are worth more than that. A 240 volts 60AMP nominal 120Amp peak microgrid is something only worth it if I had unreliable power, I do not. But I am looking at building a house that would need a temporary utility drop  in an area with notoriously bad power. I would use the trailer to get it build then strip it back into its constituent parts. The forklift batteries are heavy so I cannot tow it behind me and charge it while I am driving. 

DC Solar the company that got busted for the huge fraud actually built a couple of similar trailers with Charge Point chargers on them and supposedly they made at least one with hydrogen fuel cell for backup.


----------



## Ashful (Dec 24, 2022)

Neighbors here with electric heat are worried tonight.  The local electric utility has started sending out notices about capacity issues, asking all users to reduce usage.


----------



## begreen (Dec 24, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Neighbors here with electric heat are worried tonight.  The local electric utility has started sending out notices about capacity issues, asking all users to reduce usage.


Reminds me of when China forced the electrification of some cities in northern China, then ran low on power in a bad cold wave.


----------



## Rusty18 (Dec 25, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Neighbors here with electric heat are worried tonight.  The local electric utility has started sending out notices about capacity issues, asking all users to reduce usage.


We got the same notice...but everyone here is shocked we didn’t lose power during the two days anyways.


----------



## tlc1976 (Dec 25, 2022)

Rusty18 said:


> We got the same notice...but everyone here is shocked we didn’t lose power during the two days anyways.


Same here. Been following the electric company website and barely any power outages with the snow and 40-60 mph winds for the last 2 days.

Any other time we get this wind there are tens of thousands of outages all down the state.


----------



## MMH (Dec 25, 2022)

GrumpyDad said:


> As someone that has worked in the solar field for awhile early on, I can say that as homer said 'solar is a pipe dream'.  You really need a big solar array to produce energy worth mentioning.  It is still very costly, and it is costly to maintain.  It is an option though, if the effort is put into it to make it more affordable, and to advance the tech more.  MASS doesnt exactly get a ton of sun.  Wind is another thought, but you REALLY need to consider how big of a farm you need to power a small town.  It's alot.
> 
> Fossil fuels are the absolute most affordable and efficient means of energy today.  There's no doubt.
> 
> Americans have an insatiable need for energy.  There only ONE way to really solve that right now and in the immediate 20-30 years, and that's nuclear power.


This


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 25, 2022)

I think the utilities are scared of a future of cheap energy and are put out these notices to scare customers away from renewables.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 25, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Neighbors here with electric heat are worried tonight.  The local electric utility has started sending out notices about capacity issues, asking all users to reduce usage.



I will do my part, sir, by keeping my stove hot.  That should leave another 5-6 kW on the local grid.


----------



## Rusty18 (Dec 25, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I will do my part, sir, by keeping my stove hot.  That should leave another 5-6 kW on the local grid.


My house was built all electric, first winter we lived here I put a 30k blue flame in the basement and a 500 gal lp tank in the yard.  I will stay warm...of course the encore in the living room does all the work when I am home to feed it.


----------



## Ashful (Dec 25, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I will do my part, sir, by keeping my stove hot.  That should leave another 5-6 kW on the local grid.


haha!  Same here, both stoves were cranking hard on white oak the last several days.  Coal build up has been a bit of an issue, but we've learned to deal with that.  Our main heat is oil, so little load on the grid.  I turned off the outside lights, as the one big load I could easily control.

The minisplit in my little shop (2 floors x 600 sq.ft./ea.) was unable to keep up, the temperature had fallen to 49F when I checked around 1am, but it was only pulling about 2 kW average.  I'm going to spend some time this winter trying to figure out why that system always struggles to maintain temperature on cold days.


----------



## EbS-P (Dec 26, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> I will do my part, sir, by keeping my stove hot.  That should leave another 5-6 kW on the local grid.


Went out side at 11pm to unplug the car when I got our notice last night.   Put off a couple loads of laundry and running the dishwasher. Unplugged Xmas lights and blowups.  

Guess I could have stopped scheduled charging from the app too now I think about it.  Stoves were cranking last 3 days.   Only need 1.5 loads per day in the basement to keep it above 62.  During the day.  Heatpump hasn’t been on since the cold front came through.   We really need to think about residential thermal storage or backup non electric heat or  batteries or large grid battery storage.


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 26, 2022)

This where my utility is dropping the ball, I had 55 KWh  of available power in my batteries and had the switch ready to be flipped if the grid went down. If the utility came up with an incentive for me flip the switch and go microgrid during emergencies, I could have gone off grid for a couple of days using the battery and once the sun was out, I could switch a few parameters on my inverters and get my other solar arrays generating to the microgrid to charge up the batteries.


----------



## EbS-P (Dec 26, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> This where my utility is dropping the ball, I had 55 KWh  of available power in my batteries and had the switch ready to be flipped if the grid went down. If the utility came up with an incentive for me flip the switch and go microgrid during emergencies, I could have gone off grid for a couple of days using the battery and once the sun was out, I could switch a few parameters on my inverters and get my other solar arrays generating to the microgrid to charge up the batteries.


They (the utilities) want to be in charge. And untill they start emergency rate time billing, which I don’t think any  regulator would allow mandatory enrollment.  

California has piloted the virtual power plan program for smart connected batteries. Which from the media reports is working well.  I think that’s the future for residential installs.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 26, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> ....... We really need to think about residential thermal storage or backup non electric heat or  batteries or large grid battery storage.


Or the East Coast just needs a fleet of good offshore wind farms....  Kennedy's be damned.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 26, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> Went out side at 11pm to unplug the car when I got our notice last night.



I have switched to charging my car midday when the weather is warm and the sun is out (reducing demand by passive solar heating).  Will revert to normal next week.


----------

