3 ms·

Yeah, in a parallel comment I noted that in most of the country an 80% gas furnace is cheaper to operate.

by Aloha 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Even when you include the cost of carbon emissions in that fossil gas being burned?
- riskable 3y ago
  The subsidies on the gas drilling, production, purification, transport, and infrastructure should also be accounted for.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    How do you calculate policies specifically for gas? There are tax advantages allocated to fossil fuel exploration, but not specifically for gas - and mostly just exploration.
- cma 3y ago
  You would need a tax or heat pump allowment to adjust for that.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    Indeed, we could make electricity cheaper relative to gas to encourage HP usage, but the cost delta is high, you need electricity under 10c kWh to be competitive.
- Filligree 3y ago
  Carbon emissions don’t cost anything to the person doing it.
  - Aloha 3y ago
    Even if you add a carbon tax a 200 dollars a ton, because of the relative inefficiency of generation and transmission, natural gas ends up being cheaper.
- Aloha 3y ago
  Right now 50% of the power I can buy at any given time is generated by burning natural gas - this is true in 80% of the country. So it doesn't really matter - it might if we build some nuclear or whatever, but right now, it doesn't.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Right, you're not paying the true cost of that energy [1] [2]. I'm saying, what happens when you have to. That changes market signals, perhaps drastically, assuming the per ton cost of CO2 emitted (which is optimistically ~$50/ton but likely closer to $200/ton, assuming the only two ways to handle emitted carbon are to either not emit it or direct air capture and sequester underground ie Climeworks and company). When consumers must pay for the externalities of their fossil fuel consumption, it's no longer economically competitive. If you can't pass carbon taxes, have to outlaw new gas service like many jurisdictions are attempting to do. High level, looking at the cost of natural gas alone is insufficient for these discussions; you have to look at the entire supply chain and externalities to arrive at a true "apples to apples" comparison. (matters now, but won't as the blended cost of renewables and storage [firm generation] declines below the floor fossil gas needs to sell at to keep the infra running, and that infra already leaks like a sieve [3]) [1] https://energypost.eu/new-u-s-study-damage-per-ton-of-co2-costs-185-not-the-official-51/ https://energypost.eu/new-u-s-study-damage-per-ton-of-co2-co... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9 [3] https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps
    - amluto 3y ago
      In a sensible world, i.e. not California IOU-land, you are of course correct. In California, for IOU customers, electric rates are pushing $600/MWh. You can figure out how exactly you want to apply the emission factors: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca... But you will have a hard time making the math come out in favor of electricity. Unless you have a really nice heat pump, your electricity is 100% carbon-free, and you rule out gas-fired heat pumps [0] or cogen [1], you’re probably better off burning natural gas and using the money you save to offset your carbon usage in some more effective manner than throwing it at your local utility so they can burn it. Fundamentally, carbon pricing can work when CO2 emissions are expensive and the clean alternatives are reasonably priced. California has a major problem with the latter requirement. [0] They exist but seem very rare. [1] Reputable companies make these, but the devices are large and are not friendly for residential installations.

Yeah, in a parallel comment I noted that in most of the country an 80% gas furnace is cheaper to operate.

by Aloha 3y ago

Yeah, in a parallel comment I noted that in most of the country an 80% gas furnace is cheaper to operate.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Even when you include the cost of carbon emissions in that fossil gas being burned?

riskable 3y ago
The subsidies on the gas drilling, production, purification, transport, and infrastructure should also be accounted for.
- Aloha 3y ago
  How do you calculate policies specifically for gas? There are tax advantages allocated to fossil fuel exploration, but not specifically for gas - and mostly just exploration.
cma 3y ago
You would need a tax or heat pump allowment to adjust for that.
- Aloha 3y ago
  Indeed, we could make electricity cheaper relative to gas to encourage HP usage, but the cost delta is high, you need electricity under 10c kWh to be competitive.
Filligree 3y ago
Carbon emissions don’t cost anything to the person doing it.
- Aloha 3y ago
  Even if you add a carbon tax a 200 dollars a ton, because of the relative inefficiency of generation and transmission, natural gas ends up being cheaper.
Aloha 3y ago
Right now 50% of the power I can buy at any given time is generated by burning natural gas - this is true in 80% of the country. So it doesn't really matter - it might if we build some nuclear or whatever, but right now, it doesn't.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Right, you're not paying the true cost of that energy [1] [2]. I'm saying, what happens when you have to. That changes market signals, perhaps drastically, assuming the per ton cost of CO2 emitted (which is optimistically ~$50/ton but likely closer to $200/ton, assuming the only two ways to handle emitted carbon are to either not emit it or direct air capture and sequester underground ie Climeworks and company). When consumers must pay for the externalities of their fossil fuel consumption, it's no longer economically competitive. If you can't pass carbon taxes, have to outlaw new gas service like many jurisdictions are attempting to do. High level, looking at the cost of natural gas alone is insufficient for these discussions; you have to look at the entire supply chain and externalities to arrive at a true "apples to apples" comparison. (matters now, but won't as the blended cost of renewables and storage [firm generation] declines below the floor fossil gas needs to sell at to keep the infra running, and that infra already leaks like a sieve [3]) [1] https://energypost.eu/new-u-s-study-damage-per-ton-of-co2-costs-185-not-the-official-51/ https://energypost.eu/new-u-s-study-damage-per-ton-of-co2-co... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9 [3] https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps
  - amluto 3y ago
    In a sensible world, i.e. not California IOU-land, you are of course correct. In California, for IOU customers, electric rates are pushing $600/MWh. You can figure out how exactly you want to apply the emission factors: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca... But you will have a hard time making the math come out in favor of electricity. Unless you have a really nice heat pump, your electricity is 100% carbon-free, and you rule out gas-fired heat pumps [0] or cogen [1], you’re probably better off burning natural gas and using the money you save to offset your carbon usage in some more effective manner than throwing it at your local utility so they can burn it. Fundamentally, carbon pricing can work when CO2 emissions are expensive and the clean alternatives are reasonably priced. California has a major problem with the latter requirement. [0] They exist but seem very rare. [1] Reputable companies make these, but the devices are large and are not friendly for residential installations.