Looking forward to see what you have in store for the comments section. Limiting comments to paid subscribers is a good start but I hope you intend to participate as well.
And all of this for a very small reduction in US CO2 emission levels which will have an immeasurably small impact on global warming if any. If CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels is a problem, nothing whatsoever can be done about it without the cooperation of China and India. This is one of Biden's programs which is simply not working and because of that, VP Harris' prescription would be to cancel it. No?
The price relationship of gas and electricity matters a lot with respect to the future vision of electrify everything. For example, heat pumps consume about 1/3 the energy of a furnace. That’s a good thing, but as this article points out, electricity is 3 times more expensive than gas. So, from a cost point of view, running a heat pump vs a furnace is about the same. But when the price of electricity begins to climb because of intermittent energy (overbuilding, batteries, transmission, etc.), heat pumps become a much more expensive form of heating. The same argument can be applied to EVs. They are cheaper to operate as long as electricity prices remain low. In fact at some high speed charging stations EVs are now more expensive to operate than ICE vehicles.
That's a critical point. Heat pumps may be more efficient, at certain temperatures than gas furnaces. But it's well understood that their efficiency plummets in very low temperatures, which then requires resistance heating, which puts yet more demand on the grid. Further, the electric grid is already cracking under existing demand. Upgrading it to accommodate all the new demand from EVs, electric heating, water heaters, and things like AI, will cost a staggering amount of money, all of which will have to be absorbed by ratepayers. My next article will like be on how inflation is affecting the grid buildout.
For a building to have no burning of hydrocarbons it would have to contain no humans. And to fully avoid GHG emissions would require prevention of farts and burps. What a quest!
I'm the author of the book, Electrifying our World, which assumes we FIRST provide the world with ample, 24x7 electricity from NUCLEAR POWER at 3¢/kWh. I've posted the presentation slides used in my Dartmouth Osher courses at ElectrifyingOurWorld.com. I did another book, New Nuclear is HOT! and posted the slides at the same site. Book is at https://www.amazon.com/New-Nuclear-HOT-Robert-Hargraves/dp/B0CWZTXXVV/ref=sr_1_1 .
Why are they stonewalling? Because the numbers don’t lie. The fantasy of “electrifying everything” is not only absurdly unrealistic, it’s outrageously expensive.
Importantly, you note that “Eight major green building certification programs have agreed to embed or align or exceed the zero emissions definition within their certification programs.” Not only does this mean higher energy costs but it means higher and higher building costs. So, when Walz tells Vance that the federal government can’t help bring down the cost of building he either knowingly lied or is clueless.
Robert
I’ll write a letter to my congressman and two senators to see if we can jar loose the DOE numbers.
Thanks for your efforts.
Looking forward to see what you have in store for the comments section. Limiting comments to paid subscribers is a good start but I hope you intend to participate as well.
Yes. That was one of the main reasons for going paid. Tnx.
And all of this for a very small reduction in US CO2 emission levels which will have an immeasurably small impact on global warming if any. If CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels is a problem, nothing whatsoever can be done about it without the cooperation of China and India. This is one of Biden's programs which is simply not working and because of that, VP Harris' prescription would be to cancel it. No?
The price relationship of gas and electricity matters a lot with respect to the future vision of electrify everything. For example, heat pumps consume about 1/3 the energy of a furnace. That’s a good thing, but as this article points out, electricity is 3 times more expensive than gas. So, from a cost point of view, running a heat pump vs a furnace is about the same. But when the price of electricity begins to climb because of intermittent energy (overbuilding, batteries, transmission, etc.), heat pumps become a much more expensive form of heating. The same argument can be applied to EVs. They are cheaper to operate as long as electricity prices remain low. In fact at some high speed charging stations EVs are now more expensive to operate than ICE vehicles.
That's a critical point. Heat pumps may be more efficient, at certain temperatures than gas furnaces. But it's well understood that their efficiency plummets in very low temperatures, which then requires resistance heating, which puts yet more demand on the grid. Further, the electric grid is already cracking under existing demand. Upgrading it to accommodate all the new demand from EVs, electric heating, water heaters, and things like AI, will cost a staggering amount of money, all of which will have to be absorbed by ratepayers. My next article will like be on how inflation is affecting the grid buildout.
The infamous "new version". Aka, lying, manipulating and obfuscating.
For a building to have no burning of hydrocarbons it would have to contain no humans. And to fully avoid GHG emissions would require prevention of farts and burps. What a quest!
I'm the author of the book, Electrifying our World, which assumes we FIRST provide the world with ample, 24x7 electricity from NUCLEAR POWER at 3¢/kWh. I've posted the presentation slides used in my Dartmouth Osher courses at ElectrifyingOurWorld.com. I did another book, New Nuclear is HOT! and posted the slides at the same site. Book is at https://www.amazon.com/New-Nuclear-HOT-Robert-Hargraves/dp/B0CWZTXXVV/ref=sr_1_1 .
You are too modest. You also did an outstanding book on thorium! I have not yet read the others, but they are on my list.
Thorium is an underappreciated energy source. Why? It is more ubiquitous than uranium, and safer.
Thanks Robert! I’ve seen your slides before somewhere but didn’t know you also had a book!
Why are they stonewalling? Because the numbers don’t lie. The fantasy of “electrifying everything” is not only absurdly unrealistic, it’s outrageously expensive.
Importantly, you note that “Eight major green building certification programs have agreed to embed or align or exceed the zero emissions definition within their certification programs.” Not only does this mean higher energy costs but it means higher and higher building costs. So, when Walz tells Vance that the federal government can’t help bring down the cost of building he either knowingly lied or is clueless.
Most likely clueless!