T O P
godlords

Natural gas plant wastes 70% of it's energy as heat in producing energy. A new NG in home water heater can do near 100% efficiency. Old units, sure, gtfo, but this is actually one of the last things you ought to be tackling to reduce emissions when Cali still gets well over half of it's power from fossil fuels.


Unhappy_Earth1

That is the thing and people hear natural gas and they freak out about fracking and methane and GHG but the reality is NG in modern appliances burns at 98.5% efficient and produces very little CO2 or toxic gasses. It is the the wells and using old appliances and pipelines releasing methane that need to be addressed a lot more than banning new gas appliances. Now before anyone accuses me of being a fossil fuel shill I am a strong advocate of getting off fossil fuels for transportation, energy and industry and I promote a transition to renewable energy wind and solar with storage and green hydrogen to replace fossil fuels for many uses.


godlords

Yes precisely, it is a shame people are calling you a fossil fuel industry bot for speaking in terms of logic and facts.. When green hydrogen begins to be injected into the pipeline it will still be more efficient to run water heaters with a burner...


Unhappy_Earth1

I don't think green hydrogen will be used that way except at industrial sites where it will be produced on site at point of demand. It's main use will be as energy storage for long term projects like the Utah salt caverns and as a feed stock for plastics, making fertilizer, making steel and as a fuel for cargo ships, trains, busses and HD trucking and eventually planes. Green hydrogen competes with NG, diesel, and fossil fuel hydrogen and is already cheaper than NG in some countries.


Karlsbadcavern

Great news! Electrify everything we can and decarbonize power generation as quickly as possible. California pushing the envelope will help other states follow suit


Unhappy_Earth1

Only if that electricity is coming from renewable energy.


Karlsbadcavern

Obviously


Unhappy_Earth1

"To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.'' [https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california-climate-plan-electricity/](https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california-climate-plan-electricity/)


Unhappy_Earth1

OK, first go read the study cited in the article and you will see they lumped NG in with wood, biomass and coal. the deaths cited are not just attributed to NG and that is also from carbon monoxide poisonings from bad equipment or heating with non approved equipment. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/stationarysources/ If your home is well insulated and sealed then going all electric and using a heat pump may work in sunny California where it rarely gets very cold and cooling is more a problem. BUT they did not say how they intend to power all these homes transitioning to all electric and California just had to have people stop charging EVs and turn their AC to 78 degrees because they do not have enough power to handle the load they now have. They mention how that pollution effects poorer people the most but did they say how they intend to help those poor people that can't afford a new system or to make their homes better insulated and sealed so a heat system will work efficiently? They also make it sound like gas furnaces are a major culprit in this pollution but what about the constant forest fires in California? The fact is newer gas appliances are very efficient: "Although older fossil fuel furnace and boiler systems have efficiencies in the range of 56% to 70%, modern conventional heating systems can achieve efficiencies as high as 98.5%, converting nearly all the fuel to useful heat for your home." -DOE [https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers#:\~:text=Replacing%20Your%20Furnace%20or%20Boiler,useful%20heat%20for%20your%20home](https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers#:~:text=Replacing%20Your%20Furnace%20or%20Boiler,useful%20heat%20for%20your%20home). NG is not just used for heat a and it is heat, hot water, clothes drying and cooking.. Now consider where that power is going to come from if all those homes go electric. Will it be renewables or will it require more coal, NG and nuclear power to run those homes? I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels for transportation and industry but that transition for homes has to be done in a way we don't make the problem worse.


Automatic-Score-4802

California’s really hot isn’t it? Can’t they just build like those solar updraft tunnel thingies


Sir_Francis_Burton

I don’t think that solar updraft towers are ever going to be a competitive source of electricity, but I do think that they could be the farms of the future. They extract water out of the atmosphere! They rely on a huge greenhouse to generate the heat. There doesn’t need to be plants in the greenhouse, but they can have plants in the greenhouse. So you could build a solar updraft farm that generates its own water and it’s own electricity to run pumps or even some extra light at night to increase production. Transporting food is easier than transporting electricity, they wouldn’t need to be near any transmission-lines. The most useless low-value land in the country, land with no water-table, no electric lines, no nothing would work just fine. California might not be the best place for updraft-farms. But West Texas? Eastern New Mexico? There’s a whole lot of land out that way doing nothing.


Voldemort57

California doesn’t really have one climate. It’s literally one of the most diverse sections of land in the world. When it’s 106 in LA, it might be 60 in the Sierra Nevadas. When it’s 60 and sunny in Sacramento, the mountains can be getting 20 feet of snow overnight.


Unhappy_Earth1

You mean thermal chimneys? They do work in hot climates and painting a roof reflective white also helps reduce heat.


Automatic-Score-4802

No I mean solar updraft towers


Unhappy_Earth1

>solar updraft towers That is a thermal chimney just used to with turbines to produce energy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_updraft\_tower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower) They have some potential.


Automatic-Score-4802

Yay


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Solar updraft tower](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower)** >The solar updraft tower (SUT) is a design concept for a renewable-energy power plant for generating electricity from low temperature solar heat. Sunshine heats the air beneath a very wide greenhouse-like roofed collector structure surrounding the central base of a very tall chimney tower. The resulting convection causes a hot air updraft in the tower by the chimney effect. This airflow drives wind turbines, placed in the chimney updraft or around the chimney base, to produce electricity. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/energy/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


Clean_Link_Bot

*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower Title: **Solar updraft tower - Wikipedia** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!


ArgentBucket

I can burn coal or wood in extreme cases with more emissions than gas. The smoke can suffocate you or blind you.


ginger_and_egg

Then why would you do that


ArgentBucket

Everybody does that, visit any villiage in central europe during winter night and you will see how you can burn coal or wood with suboptimal amount of oxygen and how it looks and smell across whole villiage... People do that because it will last whole night and fire will not die, which means instant cold... Burning gas improves quality of life in cities, its better locally than burning wood. And this topic is the hill I will die on...


ginger_and_egg

Burning methane is better than burning coal. You know what's better than that? Burning nothing


rileyoneill

I have never seen people burn coal in a home furnace here in California. Having a fire heat your home is fairly rare but people will do it. If you live in the mountains where the cold is fairly extreme you will want at least one wood burning stove as a backup. Backyard bonfires are more common. Usually at parties though.


ArgentBucket

They burn gas, check this map [https://app.electricitymaps.com/map](https://app.electricitymaps.com/map) Not burning coal is not an option if you are not in rich country. Everybody else burns coal. Just visit europe and head to any villiage.


40percentdailysodium

I don't know why people are acting like you'll have to replace your gas stoves immediately if this passes. This merely bans the sale of new gas heaters, with a focus on new construction. If you already have one you're free to keep it. Edit: a word


ABrusca1105

Because Americans have been brainwashed by "cooking with gas" propaganda that most of them LEGITIMATELY believe that gas is way better for cooking when it objectively is worse.


godlords

That's absolutely true, but this thread has nothing to do with stove top burners, in home water heaters are one of the few high efficiency uses of NG... far more efficient than electric.


wtfduud

That seems a bit early.


Butuguru

What’s the concern? Heat pumps are super efficient. Obvi it’ll increase grid load in the winter but I doubt it’ll come close to summer grid load.


Equivalent-Paper-166

You need gas heat below 40 degrees......heat pumps are super inefficient below


flyingtiger188

Maybe the old heat pumps. Modern heat pumps can maintain rated capacity down to around freezing, and would only lose around a quarter down to around 0°F. With a properly sized system this isn't a problem. When hvac contractors just put in systems based off rule of thumb sqft/ton sizings the consumer can end up with a poorly functional system.


sparksnbooms95

They're inefficient at those temperatures sure, but no more so than electric resistance. They'll still heat a home, inefficiently or not. The amount of time it's actually that cold is very small there, so the high efficiency the rest of the time will outweigh the occasional inefficient operation enough that it still makes sense. They really don't need gas heat there. There are certainly places where gas is still good to have as a back up, and more economical as well. I live in Michigan, which is one of those places. It is routinely below 40 here, and even then a heat pump would be overall more efficient (and environmentally friendly) over a heating season despite our electricity coming from a gas power plant. That said, economically it still doesn't make sense here. Electricity is over 5x more expensive than gas (gas converted to kwh, assuming 100% combustion efficiency). After taking my furnace's 80% efficiency into account, electric is right around 5x more expensive. So a heat pump would have to operate at a COP (coefficient of performance) of 5 or greater at all times to make sense financially. Very few heat pumps get that kind of efficiency in ideal operating conditions, much less the conditions here. There are subsidies, both current and more in the works, but those only apply to the cost of "upgrading" to a heat pump (unit cost+installation). There are no subsidies for the increased utility bill, so as much as I'd like to do better for the environment, I simply can't afford it.


magellanNH

>They're inefficient at those temperatures sure, but no more so than electric resistance. They'll still heat a home, inefficiently or not. Modern heat pumps easily run at COPs of over 2 down to 10-15 degrees F. So even the worst-case is pretty efficient. Here's a spec sheet for a modern heat pump: [https://ashp.neep.org/#!/product/29764/7/25000///0](https://ashp.neep.org/#!/product/29764/7/25000///0) This one's COP is over 4 at 47 degrees and over 2.5 at 17 degrees F.


sparksnbooms95

I am aware of the COP of the newest and best heat pumps, but a COP of 2 at 10-15 is still nowhere near enough to make it cost competitive with gas in many places. In the winter here it is usually in the 10-20F range (with occasional dips below that, sometimes negative). So I'd be looking at an average COP of 2.5ish, which is half of what it would need to be to simply break even with gas, and in my case would lead to me paying twice as much to heat my home. No one is going to look at their heating costs double and think "Wow, how efficient!" even if technically it is. I will be impressed when I see a COP of 4+ at 10-15F, and 2 at 0F. For myself and many others, it's still not an outdated talking point, yet.


magellanNH

You're right of course that heat pumps aren't a good bet everywhere and it is important not to oversell the solution. OTOH, from what you're describing, it sounds like you have a somewhat unusual mix of very low gas cost, high electricity cost and low average winter temps. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd guess your situation represents a relatively small percent of the country's overall usage of fossil fuels for heating. Also, have you checked what your gas costs are going to be this winter? Many places are seeing 50 to 100 percent increases this year.


sparksnbooms95

Honestly I'm not sure. I pay roughly $0.11 per kwh for electricity, but nearly $0.07 per kwh for distribution. Compared to the rest of the Midwest, it's kind of high, but not absurdly. It's nowhere close to the rates I see people talking about on the west coast. It's possible that our gas is extremely cheap. I'm really not sure what other areas are paying, and I rarely see numbers when I see NG cost discussed. Currently I'm paying a total of $10.27 per MCF for gas, which equates to $0.034 per kwh (assuming 100% combustion efficiency).


magellanNH

Yeah. Your gas costs are about as low as anywhere in the US and your electricity costs are about 25% higher than average. [https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng\_pri\_sum\_a\_EPG0\_PRS\_DMcf\_m.htm](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PRS_DMcf_m.htm) [https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php#:\~:text=We%20forecast%20the%20U.S.%20residential,by%20rising%20natural%20gas%20prices](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php#:~:text=We%20forecast%20the%20U.S.%20residential,by%20rising%20natural%20gas%20prices).


sparksnbooms95

I'm actually glad that's the case. If there were a lot of people in my situation, it would likely cripple the adoption of heat pumps. I currently have a gas furnace, stove, water heater, and dryer. I would consider a heat pump dryer, simply because it's not removing heat from the house, just cycling it around and evaporating/condensing water in the process. I'm still going to wait a bit, as they dry a fair bit slower than either gas or electric resistance models, and are maintenance intensive (lint clogs heat exchangers quickly). A heat pump water heater would be ideal in summer (free A/C basically), but in winter it would still be drawing heat from the house. Since the heat comes from gas currently, that kind of renders it pointless, but the bigger issue is that the furnace is not oversized and would be unable to heat the house with a heat pump water heater cooling it down. Conveniently there is an electricity supply already present at both the dryer and water heater locations, as I converted them both from electric resistance to gas. It's been 3 years since I replaced them with new gas models, and they've already paid for themselves despite the rather expensive tankless water heater with recirculation I put in.


Clean_Link_Bot

*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PRS_DMcf_m.htm Title: **Average Residential Price ** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!


Plaidapus_Rex

A bit late, actually.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Butuguru

The IRA has subsidies for this transition. Also it remains to be proven that the winter months warming energy usage will come anywhere close to the summer cooling energy. I highly doubt that lol. Also in terms of efficiency, heat pumps can literally transfer more energy than they use while natural gas is limited by (as you mention) somewhere in the upper 90%s for efficiency.


Unhappy_Earth1

As I said: If your home is well insulated and sealed then going all electric and using a heat pump may work in sunny California where it rarely gets very cold and cooling is more a problem. These homes are not just using NG for heat and it is heat, hot water, clothes drying and cooking so you are talking about replacing almost every major appliance in their homes.


Butuguru

So like, virtually no one uses gas dryers. They exist sure but are exceedingly rare. Nonetheless the IRA also has subsidies for heat pump (or as they are called “hybrid”) water heaters and dryers.


Unhappy_Earth1

"25 percent of U.S. households have a gas dryer" Those hybrid heat pumps are not what most people will get and you are dreaming if you think there are enough of those even being produced.


Khayembii

That’s a 2014 figure as far as I can tell, and isn’t specific to California


Unhappy_Earth1

"New homes built in California starting in 2026 need to be powered by all-electric furnaces, stoves and other appliances" Want to guess how many appliances that is?


Khayembii

My point is that 25 percent of households in California today probably don’t have gas dryers. The figure is probably lower.


Unhappy_Earth1

Or it could be much higher. Again, where is that energy going to come from when CA can't even keep AC running now without telling EV owners to stop charging and turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees? I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels but the CA timeline can not be kept and will run in to massive supply and installation bottlenecks. You an see it coming now!


Butuguru

Im actually shocked it’s that high. I’ve just like never even seen one. But importantly, IRA subsidies solve that issue. They also solve your production issue. If you subsidize products and increase demand for them, supply will go up.


Unhappy_Earth1

Who produces all those appliances and what energy will be used to produce them?


Butuguru

Carrier, Bosch, Trane, etc. there’s plenty of heat pump manufacturers out there lol. As for energy, again, it will not use nearly as much energy as CA uses in the summer for cooling so the grid is a non-issue.


Unhappy_Earth1

Again, where is that energy going to come from when CA can't even keep AC running now without telling EV owners to stop charging and turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees? I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels but the CA timeline can not be kept and will run in to massive supply and installation bottlenecks. You an see it coming now!


Butuguru

What? CA was able to keep the grid up in the largest flex alert in history with 120+ degree heat. They have more to add to the grid for sure (and there’s programs already in place for it) but moving people over to heat pumps isn’t going to hurt them. There is significantly less energy usage in winter and heat pumps will decrease the largest energy use in the summer: ac. You’re talking out of your ass.


rileyoneill

There is almost no coal in California and no new coal plants will be built and no nuke plants will be built by 2030. A lot of solar and wind will be constructed, and all new homes will have rooftop solar by law.


Unhappy_Earth1

I don't think you are understanding the magnitude of this transition and it is not just CA but the world economy that will be effected. "New homes built in California starting in 2026 need to be powered by all-electric furnaces, stoves and other appliances" Want to guess how many how many homes and appliances that is?


rileyoneill

California changing zoning laws to allow for urban housing and then actively planning and building that housing is a far bigger shift than requiring the homes being electrified. We need to build about 4 million units of housing in the state, and those units need to be in urban zones, not spread out further and further into suburbia. Ideally these places need to be in commercial zones as built with a 5 over 1 style form factor. Which we would need about 40,000 of these buildings built at 1 acre per building (many downtown areas are 2 acres per block, but could also go higher at like 7-8 over 1). It comes down to about 62 square miles of 5 over 1 style housing. Spread out among every major city and town in the state. Our California High Speed rail is going to have 26 stations. Every single one of them is going to have a 1 mile radius that should be built up like this. I would go as far as to say the quarter mile radius around the station should be even higher with 5 over 1 being the shortest allowed new building. The homes need to be built ANYWAY because we have a massive housing crises where shitty old homes in places that are not affluent are north of $600k and in the wealthier places its well over a million. Requiring that new homes come with solar (which we already do), batteries (which we will when the product becomes affordable, under $100 per KWH retail price), and electrified appliances is going to be much easier than fighting the NIMBYs to allow commercial zones to up zone to high density mixed use. These regulations affect new homes being constructed. But in reality all existing homes need them as well. Which is about 13 million. That process can also take longer, but it can happen, where people replace their ovens with induction cooking, and their hot water heater with heat pump water heaters, and their HVAC with heat pumps, and when its time to reroof their home, they do it with a solar rooftop.


Unhappy_Earth1

Changing laws does not magically increase the supply chain and create new installers. Again, where is that energy going to come from when CA can't even keep AC running now without telling EV owners to stop charging and turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees? I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels but the CA timeline can not be kept and will run in to massive supply and installation bottlenecks. You an see it coming now!


rileyoneill

Why do you keep repeating these questions after I have answered them. The supply chain issues become less and less of a problem as orders get larger and more frequent as it justifies long term investments in new factories to produce these goods. Companies who are in the business of manufacturing these products now see California as an enormous market. They will have years to start tooling up their factories.


Unhappy_Earth1

You didn't answer anything and your opinions are not facts. I don't argue opinions. "To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.'' https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california-climate-plan-electricity/


rileyoneill

You asked about generation. I told you. The new generation in the state will almost be entirely solar and wind. This is not an opinion. There are major plans for these projects and any and all new residential developments have solar requirements. My opinion is that you are asking this question in bad faith. Bringing up coal and nuclear in California is a nonstarter. Neither one of them will be built in the state, and especially by a 2030 timeline. Your attitude over supply chains is irrelevant and a lot of new housing needs to be constructed in the state ANYWAY. While we will have to buy a lot of electric appliances, it means we will not have to buy a lot of gas appliances. But either way, the number of appliances and housing units has to go up. We have years to plan for this. Factories have years to start tooling up as people start adopting them.


Unhappy_Earth1

Do you have any clue how many GW of new power will be required for all of that transition? OK, good luck with that but will likely happen is it will push more people to resist the transition and even turn against it because it is requiring and mandating too much that will put financial strain on the economy and there isn't enough resources or skilled people to do the work.


throwaway923535

If you want to do multiple replies to argue against it, you should be the one providing at least some kind of data. Haven’t seen any numbers in any of your replies, you must be one of those ‘just asking questions’ guys eh?


Unhappy_Earth1

Again, where is that energy going to come from when CA can't even keep AC running now without telling EV owners to stop charging and turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees? There is your data in the facts. I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels but the CA timeline can not be kept and will run in to massive supply and installation bottlenecks. You an see it coming now!


throwaway923535

That is not data, get out of here. That was like one day during an extraordinary heat wave and they asked people to dial back their energy for a couple of hours. Grids never went down, no one died, barely anyone was inconvenienced. Give one piece of evidence proving that timeline can not be kept or that they will run into massive supply and installation bottlenecks. Real evidence, not an anecdotal story from source 'trust me bro.'


Unhappy_Earth1

Oh good grief man and CA has had trouble all summer and has ordered all state buildings to turn up thermostats and has been asking people to turn up thermostats and stop charging and use of large electric appliances all through the heat wave. Stop your nonsense!


throwaway923535

Plus, this is what Californians want. They want renewable energy and they are willing to make these minor sacrifices to achieve it. If everyone waited until the grid was able to handle every 100 year heat wave with excess capacity before implementing change then nothing would ever change. Just have to hope doomers like you don’t stand in the way.


Unhappy_Earth1

What they want and what the supply chain can handle are 2 very different things. Skills shortage imperils global energy transition [https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/skills-shortage-imperils-global-energy-transition-71565735](https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/skills-shortage-imperils-global-energy-transition-71565735) Run along now and end of dicsussion.


throwaway923535

Grade A Baloney. It wasn’t all summer, it was during a record breaking heat wave that lasted a few days and thermostats were set to go up after 5 when everyone leaves, big whoop. Get off it you drama queen.


PixelPerfectTest

>That was like one day during an extraordinary heat wave and they asked people to dial back their energy for a couple of hours. Grids never went down, no one died, barely anyone was inconvenienced. Exactly...and the peak draw on the CA grid before that event was....a decade ago! Precisely because CA has had tons of energy efficiency initiatives, and home and business solar installs. If the IRA juices solar installs and efficiency updates, it's likely that this last peak will still be the peak draw ever seen on the grid in 2030.


rileyoneill

Yes. We are going to need 120GW of solar at the low end and 330GW at the high end. We will need about 40GW of wind power. We will also need upwards of 1TWH of battery, which can be distributed between both households, businesses and large utility installations. This is also not an all or nothing scenario. Every step along the way represents more progress. The jump from 13GW solar to 25GW solar will bump us up to to where in non-summer months the daytime solar matches the daytime demand. 35GW and the daytime solar matches summer time daytime demand. 45GW and the daytime solar matches a very hot daytime demand. 55GW and the daytime solar matches a brutal heat wave demand. All of these appliances might require that new homes go from 3-4KW solar to 7-8KW. But as solar prices keep declining this becomes less and less of an issue, and 8KW of solar on a 30 year mortgage isn't very much. For the 5 over 1 form factor building, the rooftop would still be sufficient to cover the power needs of the building at 5-7KW of solar per unit. People will be pushing themselves to make these investments as they will be seeing it as a path to save money every month. A completely electrified apartment/condo is going to still have a lower energy footprint than a suburban home with a pool in the back yard that requires a pool pump (which will have an higher energy requirement than the average California driver will with an EV).


Unhappy_Earth1

That is an issue when you don't have a supply chain that can provide that or the trained installers to install it. Again, where is that energy going to come from when CA can't even keep AC running now without telling EV owners to stop charging and turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees? I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels but the CA timeline can not be kept and will run in to massive supply and installation bottlenecks. You can see it coming now!


ParkingRelation6306

Did you know, on really hot days, CA is buying power from utilities in NV or AZ that is coal fired? No need to build more plants in your backyard. And it’s clean if you can’t see the smoke stack in your state right?


rileyoneill

Yes. Both of which Coal only makes up a minority of their power and is also actively being replaced by renewables. Arizona and Nevada are the best locations for solar power in the world. Coal is a dead industry with zero long term growth and has been on a constant decline.


ParkingRelation6306

Tell that to Europe who is grabbing as much as they can at the moment. Coal demand increased this year and will do so for many more years worldwide. I would agree it’s dead like in 2060-2075.


rileyoneill

Europe has an extreme crises that has been brought on by a full blown war. That is not normal conditions. Coal in the United States has been on a long term decline, financially, the coal industry is dead. The US Down Jones Coal Index lost 98% of its value and then was de-listed. Coal use in California is almost non-existent. Coal in the American southwest is actively being replaced. As renewables continue to decline in cost, their rate of adoption increases. New coal power plants in the United States are not being constructed, and existing ones are being shuttered. Claiming that the coal industry has some kind of future is an act of cruelty towards all the displaced people in the coal industry who think they have some sort of fighting chance.


ParkingRelation6306

They were heading towards this crisis in Europe well before Russia invaded. Putin just accelerated it. Also, China and India are building more coal power plants than we are retiring. It’s not a dead industry, as much as you want it to be.


rileyoneill

Would you personally invest your money in the coal industry?


ParkingRelation6306

For mines that were providing coal to China and India, yes.


rileyoneill

You see an industry in structural decline, and you decide to put money into it? Do you think the coal industry is going to be larger 5 years from now than it is today?


[deleted]

[удалено]


existentialpenguin

> and replace all these homes gas appliances by 2030 The law does not require replacement of existing devices. It only bans the sale of new ones.


Unhappy_Earth1

I don't think you are understanding the magnitude of this transition and it is not just CA but the world economy that will be effected. "New homes built in California starting in 2026 need to be powered by all-electric furnaces, stoves and other appliances" Want to guess how many how many homes and appliances that is?


glmory

We are doing it despite all the whining people do about it being impossible. California has one of the strongest economies in the country with GDP per capita way ahead of other states. Our clean energy goals will only help us build on that lead by making us more energy efficient and less sensitive to volatile fossil fuel costs.


BoilerButtSlut

Counterpoint: This ban is 8 years away. People will not replace appliances all at once. It will take at least another 10 years after that before it really starts to make a dent in electricity consumption. Electrifying also offers some flexibility in power: electricity can be sourced and routed from a variety of different means. Gas cannot.


Unhappy_Earth1

I agree it could be done if they get the green hydrogen storage project done in Utah that will send wind power from the midwest and have the storage capacity needed for this transition. CA has the right idea but their timeline is too short and what they want to do is too broad. They will run into major resource and supply line bottlenecks and not enough skilled people to do these installations. There is not a need to eliminate all gas use and just that which is the most polluting and that is from transportation and industries. Homes are not a major culprit and can be transitioned off later.


BoilerButtSlut

I don't really see a reason to wait. This is effectively a 20-25 year transition. Probably closer to 30+. There shouldn't be an issue in building the needed infrastructure in that time. It's a bit like living in 1992 and then saying that since wind and solar aren't going to be ready, the renewal energy requirement is too short and too broad. A lot can change in that time. This doesn't mean that they can't screw it up, FWIW. Maybe they will. But waiting another 10 years or so won't change that.


Unhappy_Earth1

I don't think you are understanding the magnitude of this transition and it is not just CA but the world economy that will be effected. "New homes built in California starting in 2026 need to be powered by all-electric furnaces, stoves and other appliances" Want to guess how many how many homes and appliances that is?


BoilerButtSlut

I'm an electrical engineer. I fully understand it. It's really not a big deal. A transition over 20+ years is not a shock to any system except on geological timescales. You are really making too much of this.


Unhappy_Earth1

Sure you are. Skills shortage imperils global energy transition [https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/skills-shortage-imperils-global-energy-transition-71565735](https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/skills-shortage-imperils-global-energy-transition-71565735) ​ Ta ta now and end of discussion.


BoilerButtSlut

I can find articles about a clean energy labor shortage going back 15 years. There will always be a shortage of workers for an expanding industry. That's the nature of it. Also shortage of tech workers but I don't see anyone arguing that we need to slow down to let labor catch up. Increased demand is the best way to expand the labor force. Show people going into trades or school that there will be locked in demand for a while. People don't sign up for trades that aren't growing and have no sign of it happening. Again, 20+ years. Many future workers for this aren't even born yet.


PixelPerfectTest

>Want to guess how many how many homes and appliances that is? CA builds \~80k new homes a year. So, \~100k/yr in 2030 or so. Totally manageable. In the 60's the all-electric home program built about a million all electric homes over a decade, which is on the same scale. Seems totally reasonable, if not downright easy to me...


Unhappy_Earth1

Totally manageable he says having no clue how supply chains and new installers all take time to build and train those people.


PixelPerfectTest

What new people do they need during home construction to put in electric appliances that isn't there already? Is a different electrician needed to run the wires for a heat, pump, vs HVAC, lol? How will they ever manage to install one less appliance since they won't need a furnace anymore, right?!? Need a different finisher for plugging in the induction cooktop into an outlet vs connecting the gas, lol? Yea, strong argument you got there. Supply chain is handled. It's a fairly standard industrial process, so if there's money to be made you just scale out. An extra 80k units per year globally when they're already running 3.5 million units a year, and will likely be north of 5-6 million units per year in 2030 is just an impossible feat to manage, truly. How would a supply chain ever manage to grow by 2%?!?!?!! Lol. If my production manager couldn't work with my supply chain to grow 2% in a year, I'd fire 'em, lol. Most industrial segments target much larger YoY growth than that.


Unhappy_Earth1

Skills shortage imperils global energy transition https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/skills-shortage-imperils-global-energy-transition-71565735


PixelPerfectTest

Lol, so an article with nothing to do with houses or electric appliances. Strong argument you have there, lol. A lack of technicians for wind turbines are going to keep induction cooktop a from being installed in CA homes, for sure.


skinnybuddha

Can you run for governor?


glmory

California has the best Governor in the country right now, don’t expect us to change course.


RemoveInvasiveEucs

Clearly this sub is under a bot attack, but this is actually really good news. When it comes to HVAC, residential customers are never going to get the best possible system and value, they are going to get what the HVAC company has a surplus of, or what they get the highest commission on selling. And when it comes to furnaces, they are usually replaced when broken, so there's about as much time to do research as there is when you're in an ambulance and need emergency care. Even with a prospective replacement of a new furnace, it took forever to find someone who would even consider a heat pump. It's been installed for two years, and been really great. Cheaper, too.


n82002

Yeah it’s either bots or a lot of uninformed people. Heat Pumps are a much better method for heating and cooling. Unless you learned about them decades ago when they stopped working at below 0 temps. I hope this makes it easier to find heat pump models and HVAC professionals willing to install them.


Unhappy_Earth1

These homes are not just using NG for heat and it is heat, hot water, clothes drying and cooking so you are talking about replacing almost every major appliance in their homes. Now consider where that power is going to come from if all those homes go electric. Will it be renewables or will it require more coal, NG and nuclear power to run those homes? I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels for transportation and industry but that transition for homes has to be done in a way we don't make the problem worse and hurt low income and older people that don't have the resources to transition without a lot of help.


rileyoneill

I don't think you understand the scope of this law and the context of other laws in California. This is affecting new construction projects. New construction projects in the state already require rooftop solar power. So if a developer in 2031 is building a new residential building, the entire building will not have gas. It will have electrified appliances. As of right now, it is stupid for developers to build new projects and have them with gas. New projects should be electrified today if possible. This law is not requiring that all home owners go out and replace all of their equipment by 2030. But as things do need to be replaced, replace them with electrified appliances. When your hot water heater needs to be replaced, do so with something other than a gas powered hot water heater, of which is still an improving technology, and in 2030 will have been completely refined.


Unhappy_Earth1

"To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.'' https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california-climate-plan-electricity/


Unhappy_Earth1

Again, where is that energy going to come from when CA can't even keep AC running now without telling EV owners to stop charging and turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees? I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels but the CA timeline can not be kept and will run in to massive supply and installation bottlenecks. You an see it coming now!


rileyoneill

Building new solar and wind generation. It’s obvious. California had an extreme heatwave that stressed the entire system and due we had a few five hour long flex alerts. We kept our AC running. As new developments will have rooftop solar they will be generating their own power. The home battery is going to eliminate the periods or extreme demand. As more people buy home batteries we will have ways to drastically reduce demand during flex alerts. You act as if induction cooktops or heat pump water heaters are some enormous problem.


Unhappy_Earth1

They are a problem when you are making a massive transition that will require new supply chains and installers. Do you know where most of those will be made? Hint: In china using coal powered manufacturing. "To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.'' https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california-climate-plan-electricity/


PixelPerfectTest

>They are a problem when you are making a massive transition that will require new supply chains and installers. Uh, I have one of [these](https://www.thespruce.com/gold-medallion-home-definition-1821516) on my home. About 100k all-electric homes a year were built in the early 60's. The supply chains to build full electric homes at this scale have been around for like 70+ years now.


Unhappy_Earth1

Cool story bro!


PixelPerfectTest

Yea, pretty rad, eh?


Kogster

Burning gas in a plant to make electricity. Send it to a house and then run it through a heat pump to heat the house uses substantially less gas than burning it in the house directly. Also the benefit of not having your house turn into a crater from a leak.


godlords

That's... not at all true, the exact opposite actually.. you have waste heat on the production side, transmission losses, congestion loss..


Kogster

Which is made up for by the heat pump being 100%+ efficient. It can be that because it's not actually heating. It's moving heat which requires less energy than heating.


godlords

There is not a large amount of need for heating in California.. by far the largest use of NG is water heaters..


Unhappy_Earth1

So you are promoting gas power plants which is why I said this plan will backfire.


Kogster

I'm saying IF conversion of energy production is just burning gas at a plant that would still lead to big gas savings.


Unhappy_Earth1

No, it won't because CA does not have that renewable energy installed so they will ramp up gas use. "To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.'' https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california-climate-plan-electricity/


Kogster

Burning gas in a powerplant to power a heat pump is a more efficient way of heating a house than burning gas in that house. I said nothing about renewables.


Unhappy_Earth1

That depends on the gas plant and NG peaker plants are some of the dirtiest and most expensive energy next to nuclear. Newer NG furnaces are 98.5% efficient. They are not the big bad pollution culprit this article is claiming as I explained in my OP.


n82002

Yep I agree with you that we need to help those in need out and make it cheaper to transition away. But they aren’t forcing that on anyone. Just won’t be able to buy new after 2030.


dasponge

Heat pumps are great for cooling and ok for heating. TBH I much prefer radiant heat to forced hot air, and heat pumps can’t cut it for the water temps needed in older homes.


Splenda

This doesn't concern older homes. New construction only. Heat pumps work [very well](https://www.arcticheatpumps.com/radiant-floor-heating-with-heat-pump.html) with radiant heat systems.


Clean_Link_Bot

*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://www.arcticheatpumps.com/radiant-floor-heating-with-heat-pump.html Title: **Radiant Floor Heating with Heat Pump | Arctic Heat Pumps** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!


n82002

Ah yeah I’ve only ever had forced air heating so I often forget about radiant heat. That definitely seems better for heating. I wonder why heat pumps can’t be used there though. I would think it’s still a lot safer than the health risks that come with natural gas.


dasponge

Last I looked into it, they can't achieve the necessary water temps. A hot water cast iron radiator system typically runs with ~140-180F water, and heat pumps have trouble getting more than 110-120 on the output side (good enough for radiant flooring perhaps, but not radiators).


not_thecookiemonster

They should just ban heat- global warming problem solved.


[deleted]

Climate communists strike again.


ginger_and_egg

How do you suggest we decrease carbon emissions?


[deleted]

Why are you talking to me two times? I genuinely don’t believe we need to “decrease carbon emissions”


ginger_and_egg

Define communism


[deleted]

Nice try picking a semantic argument. Government control of the people under the guise of “of the people”


ginger_and_egg

That definition of communism is not a useful one


[deleted]

It’s an applicable one. Government control of: The car you drive, the lawnmower you own, the thermostat in your house, the gas you pump, the food you eat, the beverages you drink and how you drink it. I could go on


ginger_and_egg

The government already controls these things. Cars have regulations, on and on. Those things will be provided by privately owned businesses under capitalism. Unfortunately, no classless stateless society is involved one bit. Capitalism my friend, not communism


[deleted]

Those things are provided by privately owned businesses that are handicapped and controlled by the government. That’s not capitalism. When your thermostat gets locked out because 75 degrees is as cold as they’ll allow your ac; that’s climate communism. When your car locks you out for being over your weekly allowed emissions; that’s climate communism.


ginger_and_egg

Zero people are suggesting remote control locks on car emissions. Just stop fucking polluting the world for god sakes. And stop complaining about "communism" that is literally happening under fucking capitalism.


[deleted]

I think you’re misunderstanding what capitalism is. Free market capitalism, at least. Under true free market capitalism, the market would set whether we pollute or not. If it’s the will of the people to not pollute, then that will be the case. But the government shouldn’t force you. And you’re totally wrong on your car take. All new cars now have auto off at traffic lights. Diesel vehicles have DEF tanks mandatory. Why do you think that is? Government control. What do you think that looks like 10, 20, 30 years from now?


ginger_and_egg

"Free market capitalism" without government intervention doesn't account for externality costs or benefits. Pollution affects everyone, not the polluter. The coal power plant owner doesn't have to pay for the medical costs of increased cancer rates for the citizens. Cancer rates that would even affect a hypothetical citizen who didn't use any electricity! Neither the buyer or seller pays the cost of pollution, the rest of us do


250-miles

Electricity should be pretty cheap by then. Lots of homes will have upgraded insulation and appliances due to Build Back Better. Half of the news will be about new climate change induced catastrophes. Makes sense.


ParkingRelation6306

Only thing that is certain is electricity will not be cheaper.


PixelPerfectTest

Since by this time all new builds also require solar, the overall net electric bill for an all electric house may be cheaper than what people experience currently, even if electricity prices are higher.


ParkingRelation6306

So you’re not taking into account the cost of the array and install? Yes it’s amortized, but it’s not free or even cheap.


PixelPerfectTest

Average new home build in CA is north of $1M. Had quotes to put a 6k array in for just under $10k, less than 1% price increase, likely price saved elsewhere in the build to meet a price point. By 2030, house build prices will have probably risen faster than solar install prices, so even less of a factor.


ParkingRelation6306

With battery?


PixelPerfectTest

Batteries aren't required for new builds yet, like solar is. Point was that the required solar will help defray energy costs. Don't know why you pivoted to needing a battery, but by then it's likely to still wrap up to around an extra percent total upper, since again home build.prices will rise faster than batteries, and prices are already approaching $2M (i find ranges with $1.75M as am average...).


ParkingRelation6306

I pivoted to batteries because you said that solar installed on houses won’t be burdened by higher energy prices in the future. Without a battery, the intermittent solar power will still fall off when everyone needs it most. So these installs won’t keep homeowners away from the even higher future energy bills. And also, based on supply and demand for solar and batteries, I wouldn’t assume that these costs wouldn’t increase faster than home values in the future. We are already seeing that as well.


PixelPerfectTest

Lol, what?!? Home values are currently skyrocketing waaaay faster than solar installs. I refinanced my house last year, and just last week got notified I could take an extra 20% out if I wanted to refinance again, lol. I said that the solar would defray energy costs. A house with solar on it will pay less electricity than those without....so you needed to include that factor in your analysis for new builds, since they're required. Higher evening solar costs, but less or zero from sun up to sun down will cancel out some. Ok, pivot to batteries. Make the total install cost $20k (my powerwalls were $6k each, installed. So call it $14k solar, $6k battery, we're now slightly above 1% of an average CA house cost, it's just not worth arguing about $6k on a $1.6M cost, imho).


250-miles

Why would it get more expensive?


dakta

Increased demand, inadequate increase in supply, increase in cost of supply as supply shifts away from ridiculously cheap-per-joule fossil fuels. But mostly increased demand.


250-miles

Solar has no cost per joule once installed.


ParkingRelation6306

It’s all the additional costs to get power from panels to cities. High voltage transmission lines and long duration storage batteries. PUCs pass all of these projects onto rate payers as they are required to make typically 10% RoR. If solar is free, then why is CA paying the highest energy costs in the country?


tenemu

Electricity will only be more expensive then.


250-miles

Solar is getting cheaper. Storage is getting cheaper. The average house will have 4 days worth of storage in their EV by then. Why would it be more expensive?


tenemu

Solar has been getting cheaper for years. Electricity rates keep going up. I don’t think the average house will have 4 days of batteries in 8 years. I don’t see battery cost and solar cost dropping that much in 8 years. Not enough for a majority of homes to switch to solar and battery.


rileyoneill

If you self generate with your own rooftop solar, which is mandated for new construction, your energy is cheap. This law affects new builds. If developers of 2027 are building new housing units, those housing units will need to have solar on the rooftop, and electrified appliances.


tenemu

IM fully aware. I work in this industry. I don’t think there will be that much impact for utilities to lower prices within 10 years. Even with boosts like the new home construction or the IRA with its 30% rebate. I hope I’m wrong. CA electricity rates are very expensive.


Unhappy_Earth1

Who is going to do all that work that has the training? These homes are not just using NG for heat and it is heat, hot water, clothes drying and cooking so you are talking about replacing almost every major appliance in their homes. Now consider where that power is going to come from if all those homes go electric. Will it be renewables or will it require more coal, NG and nuclear power to run those homes? I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels for transportation and industry but that transition for homes has to be done in a way we don't make the problem worse and hurt low income and older people that don't have the resources to transition without a lot of help.


ginger_and_egg

Oh no who is going to replace my gas powered fridge and my gas powered TV and my gas powered washing machine? Houses usually have 3 or 4 gas appliances, heater, water heater, stove, maybe dryer. It's not hard to install electric stoves, water heaters, or dryers. It's not hard to install resistive heaters, though they use a lot more power.


Unhappy_Earth1

Again, where is that energy going to come from when CA can't even keep AC running now without telling EV owners to stop charging and turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees? I am all for transitioning off fossil fuels but the CA timeline can not be kept and will run in to massive supply and installation bottlenecks. You an see it coming now!


ginger_and_egg

Does CA have any problem with electricity in the winter? CA has problems in some areas with electrical infrastructure. That infrastructure should be built better. The problem is infrastructure, not renewables


Unhappy_Earth1

"To achieve the plan’s goals, air board officials project that California will need about 30 times more electric vehicles on the road, six times more electric appliances in homes to replace gas appliances, 60 times more hydrogen supply and four times more wind and solar generation capacity.'' https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california-climate-plan-electricity/


ginger_and_egg

Forgive me, we were talking about heaters. You're expanding the scope of the discussion greatly


Unhappy_Earth1

Replacing heaters is just one part of the bans and mandates now in place in CA.


ginger_and_egg

Sure, but we were talking about the heaters


Unhappy_Earth1

You commented on my OP and I was discussing the entire transition off fossil fuels.


Pleasant_Acadia_5800

The goal: CONTROL


01_caddie

The result: Freezing residents. Good luck.