5 ms·

I would dearly love to electrify everything, but electricity around here (California) has price growth strongly exceeding inflation while simultaneously getting

I would dearly love to electrify everything, but electricity around here (California) has price growth strongly exceeding inflation while simultaneously getting less reliable. You're economically better off converting electric loads to gas, even if that means using gas to generate electricity.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Presumably the solution is to scale up the supply of renewable energy. Another solution is to start making things more energy efficient. There's a lot of untapped efficiency out there.
- danans 5y ago
  > There's a lot of untapped efficiency out there. That's especially true with houses. However, speaking as someone who has renovated their home for extreme efficiency (and now uses 75% less energy than their neighbors) the problem is that the upfront cost of efficiency - both economic and in learning curve - is still very high, at least in the US. Unless one is willing/able to take on a big and expensive project in home building or renovation, it's hard to make big leaps in efficiency. This is compounded by the reality that the construction industry is very conservative and doesn't like doing things in new ways. AFAICT, the only "easy" efficiency change that is close to a "no-brainer" is replacing your existing gas or electric water heater with a heat pump water heater, because it generally doesn't require replacement of an entire system, just one appliance. The other things that make a big difference to efficiency: sealing/insulating building envelopes, installing heat pump HVAC, are much more invasive procedures. There is a small industry of tools and contractors who specialize in those, but there's not a lot of standards or cost-efficient ways to achieve high efficiency yet. And at least in the US, high home efficiency and comfort are targeted primarily at wealthier people, and the goods/services are priced with that demographic's means in mind. Unfortunately, a few thousand wealthier people with efficient and comfortable homes does nothing for the grid or the climate. Europe seems much further along in this area, with efficient technology and design being better captured in building codes and off the shelf technologies, and with a focus on energy efficient multi-family buildings.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Honestly my rule of thumb with respect to climate is that private individuals’ pollution pales in comparison to upstream industry. I expect the same is true here as well-residential efficiency is probably small potatoes compared to the efficiency opportunities in industry.
    - danans 5y ago
      Residential is the single largest sector of electricity consumption in the United States: https://www.statista.com/statistics/560927/us-retail-electricity-consumption-by-sector/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/560927/us-retail-electri... Electricity production represents 25% of GHG emissions in the US: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Direct residential GHG emissions (i.e. from burning natural gas) are also significant. In total, residential energy use of all kinds accounts for 20% of US GHG emissions: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        I'm not sure what if anything you're refuting here, because this all seems to support my claim that the biggest opportunities likely lie in industry. Specifically, your bottom line ("In total, residential energy use of all kinds accounts for 20% of US GHG emissions:") is still considerably less than upstream industry, logistics, etc and especially considering the misleading framing of "US GHG emissions" which don't capture the much larger share of emissions that are outsourced via trade (i.e., America buys a lot of shit from China, India, etc and those countries' industry is even less GHG-efficient than US industry). Note that I don't mean to imply that you intended to mislead. Maybe we're just agreeing here, and you're throwing out extra context?
        danans 5y ago
        > Maybe we're just agreeing here, and you're throwing out extra context? We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Beyond residential, private consumer choices in general - and importantly the incentives that drive them - have massive effect on upstream industrial and commercial energy uses, far greater than the 20% "residential" piece of the pie. 60% of the "transportation" sector comes from light-duty vehicles [1], which is why electrification of passenger cars is so critical. And by the same token, we absolutely should look into the GHG footprint of imported goods from overseas or domestically produced. Carbon taxes - phased in, and with rebates to lower income quantiles - are a simple way to handle that. 1. https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-sector-carbon-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-secto...
BurningFrog 5y ago
California's "never build anything anywhere" policy makes many things difficult.
deelowe 5y ago
How much of that is because the approach to power generation has been to try and squeeze more out of the existing infrastructure (gas, nuclear, and hydro) instead of transformation to green alternatives (solar and wind)? Just as an example, it seems that the Pacific DC and AC Intertie's go through some pretty remote places that could be prime candidates for solar installations.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I will continue to vote against any politician who proclaims wind/solar as the only option a I don't feel they have done any research since they are excluding geo/nuclear sources as well. I refuse to live in a world of constant brown/blackouts and 10X energy costs than we have now.
  - pas 5y ago
    If energy costs are constantly 10x than now, then it'd be a no brainer to build a lot of new power plants. The problem is that the prices are "artificially" lowered, which of course results in the bad quality of service (bad capacity targets, which directly result in brownouts, but also not enough maintenance on the aging distribution network). If energy prices were 10x, it'd make sense to invest in energy generating capacity (and lobbying for allowing to build it).

throwaway894345 5y ago

Presumably the solution is to scale up the supply of renewable energy. Another solution is to start making things more energy efficient. There's a lot of untapped efficiency out there.

danans 5y ago
> There's a lot of untapped efficiency out there. That's especially true with houses. However, speaking as someone who has renovated their home for extreme efficiency (and now uses 75% less energy than their neighbors) the problem is that the upfront cost of efficiency - both economic and in learning curve - is still very high, at least in the US. Unless one is willing/able to take on a big and expensive project in home building or renovation, it's hard to make big leaps in efficiency. This is compounded by the reality that the construction industry is very conservative and doesn't like doing things in new ways. AFAICT, the only "easy" efficiency change that is close to a "no-brainer" is replacing your existing gas or electric water heater with a heat pump water heater, because it generally doesn't require replacement of an entire system, just one appliance. The other things that make a big difference to efficiency: sealing/insulating building envelopes, installing heat pump HVAC, are much more invasive procedures. There is a small industry of tools and contractors who specialize in those, but there's not a lot of standards or cost-efficient ways to achieve high efficiency yet. And at least in the US, high home efficiency and comfort are targeted primarily at wealthier people, and the goods/services are priced with that demographic's means in mind. Unfortunately, a few thousand wealthier people with efficient and comfortable homes does nothing for the grid or the climate. Europe seems much further along in this area, with efficient technology and design being better captured in building codes and off the shelf technologies, and with a focus on energy efficient multi-family buildings.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Honestly my rule of thumb with respect to climate is that private individuals’ pollution pales in comparison to upstream industry. I expect the same is true here as well-residential efficiency is probably small potatoes compared to the efficiency opportunities in industry.
  - danans 5y ago
    Residential is the single largest sector of electricity consumption in the United States: https://www.statista.com/statistics/560927/us-retail-electricity-consumption-by-sector/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/560927/us-retail-electri... Electricity production represents 25% of GHG emissions in the US: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Direct residential GHG emissions (i.e. from burning natural gas) are also significant. In total, residential energy use of all kinds accounts for 20% of US GHG emissions: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/19122
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I'm not sure what if anything you're refuting here, because this all seems to support my claim that the biggest opportunities likely lie in industry. Specifically, your bottom line ("In total, residential energy use of all kinds accounts for 20% of US GHG emissions:") is still considerably less than upstream industry, logistics, etc and especially considering the misleading framing of "US GHG emissions" which don't capture the much larger share of emissions that are outsourced via trade (i.e., America buys a lot of shit from China, India, etc and those countries' industry is even less GHG-efficient than US industry). Note that I don't mean to imply that you intended to mislead. Maybe we're just agreeing here, and you're throwing out extra context?
      - danans 5y ago
        > Maybe we're just agreeing here, and you're throwing out extra context? We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Beyond residential, private consumer choices in general - and importantly the incentives that drive them - have massive effect on upstream industrial and commercial energy uses, far greater than the 20% "residential" piece of the pie. 60% of the "transportation" sector comes from light-duty vehicles [1], which is why electrification of passenger cars is so critical. And by the same token, we absolutely should look into the GHG footprint of imported goods from overseas or domestically produced. Carbon taxes - phased in, and with rebates to lower income quantiles - are a simple way to handle that. 1. https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-sector-carbon-emissions/ https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-secto...

BurningFrog 5y ago

California's "never build anything anywhere" policy makes many things difficult.

deelowe 5y ago

How much of that is because the approach to power generation has been to try and squeeze more out of the existing infrastructure (gas, nuclear, and hydro) instead of transformation to green alternatives (solar and wind)? Just as an example, it seems that the Pacific DC and AC Intertie's go through some pretty remote places that could be prime candidates for solar installations.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
I will continue to vote against any politician who proclaims wind/solar as the only option a I don't feel they have done any research since they are excluding geo/nuclear sources as well. I refuse to live in a world of constant brown/blackouts and 10X energy costs than we have now.
- pas 5y ago
  If energy costs are constantly 10x than now, then it'd be a no brainer to build a lot of new power plants. The problem is that the prices are "artificially" lowered, which of course results in the bad quality of service (bad capacity targets, which directly result in brownouts, but also not enough maintenance on the aging distribution network). If energy prices were 10x, it'd make sense to invest in energy generating capacity (and lobbying for allowing to build it).