ABG: U.S. carbon emissions spike in 2018 after years of falling
- Thread starter GRA
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
iPlug
Well-known member
1) More driving
Low gas prices have not helped here. Increased taxation on oil products would help, but the continued electrification of the transportation sector will ultimately mitigate this.
2) Increased use of natural gas for heating
This is a big problem regardless of any particular unusually cold season.
While the greening of the grid and transportation sector is earnestly under way, little progress is occurring with heating homes, other buildings, and hot water. Many homes considered to be "net zero" are really just net zero on electricity use. In many places in the U.S., however, more GHGs are produced from heating the home and water.
We need to work on getting heat pumps into homes and other buildings, especially where the climate and regional energy sources (e.g. hydro, wind, nuclear...) are most ideal.
Low gas prices have not helped here. Increased taxation on oil products would help, but the continued electrification of the transportation sector will ultimately mitigate this.
2) Increased use of natural gas for heating
This is a big problem regardless of any particular unusually cold season.
While the greening of the grid and transportation sector is earnestly under way, little progress is occurring with heating homes, other buildings, and hot water. Many homes considered to be "net zero" are really just net zero on electricity use. In many places in the U.S., however, more GHGs are produced from heating the home and water.
We need to work on getting heat pumps into homes and other buildings, especially where the climate and regional energy sources (e.g. hydro, wind, nuclear...) are most ideal.
LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
Funny you should mention that, we did an HVAC changeout at a family member's house last year and eliminated the gas heat in favor of resistance electric (heat is rarely used in FL) and I'm about to get rid of the old gas water heater in favor of electric so the house will be total electric. The equipment at the house is cheaper and I figure either the electric company can burn the gas more efficiently or increase the mix of renewables.
I was reading an article from green car reports I think it was and they were saying that if all passenger vehicle became electric over night it would only reduce over all US carbon dioxide output by around 11%.
As long as most of the power to charge the electric vehicles comes from fossil fuels nothing really changes. A large portion would have to come from nuclear power to have any meaningful mitigating impact on CO2 release.
As long as most of the power to charge the electric vehicles comes from fossil fuels nothing really changes. A large portion would have to come from nuclear power to have any meaningful mitigating impact on CO2 release.
I have an associates degree in applied science for wind and solar power generation.SageBrush said:
What do you want to know?
I can tell you wind and solar are not going to be able to replace coal fired power plants on a large scale within our life times.
I am putting solar panels on my house and I may possibly build my own solar farm if I can do it profitably. So I have nothing against solar or wind power.
I'm just not bindly optimistic like everyone else who hasn't been formally educated on the subject.
iPlug
Well-known member
Most of this is because only 28% of green house gas (GHG) emissions come from the transportation sector in the U.S.. And passenger vehicles only represent a portion of this. Buses, planes, trains, ships, and commercial trucks represent a large part of that 28%.Oilpan4 said:
Electricity production also represents 28% of GHG in the U.S., and this, like the transportation sector, continues to move towards more renewables. Yet residences only use a percent of this. Commercial and industrial buildings/facilities also use a large part, so it's not enough for a home to become electrically "net zero".
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Indirectly, we can have some influence on all sectors of U.S. carbon emissions by the way we vote. Directly, some things U.S. residents can do and have a lot more control over: upgrade to electric vehicle(s), solar PV, heat pumps for heating home air and water, efficient appliances, low/no animal source diet...
iPlug
Well-known member
There is still much that can be done nationally with renewables.
California (latest is 2017 data), the largest state and with no particularly unique natural energy resources, is a good place to see what trends remain possible:
-coal mix unchanged at 4%
-natural gas use decreased and is down for 3 consecutive years, now 33.67% of the power mix
-nuclear remained nearly stable, down a tenth of a percent to 9.1%
-large hydro increased temporarily from 10.2% to 14.7% of the mix due to drought breaking rainfall
-non-large hydro renewables grew almost as fast and renewables continue to climb rapidly, with another year over year 3.55% power mix gain to the current 29.00%
-wind continued to grow, but at an ever slowing rate, now 9.4%, up from 9.06%
-solar outpaced wind for the first time now at 10.2% (8.11% prior year)
-small hydro grew temporarily with large hydro, again with record rainfall that winter/spring
-still, the impact of solar was underestimated as “behind the meter” home solar was not measured as only units generating 1MW or greater were counted
-California total system electric generation was up 0.5 percent from 2016 largely due to growth in the number of light duty electric vehicles registered in the state
-California’s non-CO2 emitting electric generation categories (nuclear, large hydroelectric, and renewable generation) accounted for more than 56 percent of total in-state generation for 2017, compared to 50 percent in 2016 (and 40% in 2015)
California (latest is 2017 data), the largest state and with no particularly unique natural energy resources, is a good place to see what trends remain possible:
-coal mix unchanged at 4%
-natural gas use decreased and is down for 3 consecutive years, now 33.67% of the power mix
-nuclear remained nearly stable, down a tenth of a percent to 9.1%
-large hydro increased temporarily from 10.2% to 14.7% of the mix due to drought breaking rainfall
-non-large hydro renewables grew almost as fast and renewables continue to climb rapidly, with another year over year 3.55% power mix gain to the current 29.00%
-wind continued to grow, but at an ever slowing rate, now 9.4%, up from 9.06%
-solar outpaced wind for the first time now at 10.2% (8.11% prior year)
-small hydro grew temporarily with large hydro, again with record rainfall that winter/spring
-still, the impact of solar was underestimated as “behind the meter” home solar was not measured as only units generating 1MW or greater were counted
-California total system electric generation was up 0.5 percent from 2016 largely due to growth in the number of light duty electric vehicles registered in the state
-California’s non-CO2 emitting electric generation categories (nuclear, large hydroelectric, and renewable generation) accounted for more than 56 percent of total in-state generation for 2017, compared to 50 percent in 2016 (and 40% in 2015)
According to the IEA the US generated 1.2 Terra watt hours in 2017 with coal.
That would require about 240 Terra watts of installed PV capacity and a battery to store some of it.
To replace natural gas and coal you are looking at more like 500 Terra watts.
The United states has been installing solar panels like crazy for the last 10 years and is only at 50 gigawatts hours of generation or about 1% for PV.
So if the US continues to install and replace 2% of capacity with solar every 5 years we hit about 15%, maybe 20% capacity and the solar panels installed in the begining are worn out and that's being really optimistic.
Then there is the problem of there being no way to build enough battery capacity to store solar power for night use.
Build a nuclear power plant, 25 years go by it still produces rated power and is only about half to 2/3 of the way through its useable life.
Any one who understands anything about power generation wouldn't be trying to power the country with solar panels at night.
The logical solution would be to use nuclear and hydroelectric to cover the base load or night time load and use wind and solar to cover the day time peak load, along with a few natural gas plants to cover emergency and unusually high demand. Plus a few coal plants for fly ash to help make really cheap very high strength pozzolanic blend, low efflorescent concrete.
And I mean a little coal like 1 to 3% of total power production.
You know so we have concrete to build dams, wind turbines, roads, bridges, buildings, ect.
Then there is the problem of if every family buys 1 electric vehicle their electrical consumption will increase by up to 20 to 30%, if both adults work.
If almost every 2 car family switches to 1 electric car or plug in hybrid over the next 10 uears the rate the US has been installing solar likely won't even keep up with that demand.
Our 2 primarily cars are going to be the leaf and a 2017 lease turn in hyundai sonata plug in hybrid.
So both of ours are going to be primarily electric.
That would require about 240 Terra watts of installed PV capacity and a battery to store some of it.
To replace natural gas and coal you are looking at more like 500 Terra watts.
The United states has been installing solar panels like crazy for the last 10 years and is only at 50 gigawatts hours of generation or about 1% for PV.
So if the US continues to install and replace 2% of capacity with solar every 5 years we hit about 15%, maybe 20% capacity and the solar panels installed in the begining are worn out and that's being really optimistic.
Then there is the problem of there being no way to build enough battery capacity to store solar power for night use.
Build a nuclear power plant, 25 years go by it still produces rated power and is only about half to 2/3 of the way through its useable life.
Any one who understands anything about power generation wouldn't be trying to power the country with solar panels at night.
The logical solution would be to use nuclear and hydroelectric to cover the base load or night time load and use wind and solar to cover the day time peak load, along with a few natural gas plants to cover emergency and unusually high demand. Plus a few coal plants for fly ash to help make really cheap very high strength pozzolanic blend, low efflorescent concrete.
And I mean a little coal like 1 to 3% of total power production.
You know so we have concrete to build dams, wind turbines, roads, bridges, buildings, ect.
Then there is the problem of if every family buys 1 electric vehicle their electrical consumption will increase by up to 20 to 30%, if both adults work.
If almost every 2 car family switches to 1 electric car or plug in hybrid over the next 10 uears the rate the US has been installing solar likely won't even keep up with that demand.
Our 2 primarily cars are going to be the leaf and a 2017 lease turn in hyundai sonata plug in hybrid.
So both of ours are going to be primarily electric.
Pumped water storage can provide a big enough "battery" for solar and wind power storage, if the local geography supports it. Molten sodium "batteries" also show promise. You have to look beyond chemical batteries.
iPlug
Well-known member
The California numbers noted stand well on their own and there is little sign the trend can't continue. As noted, non-CO2 emitting electric generation categories in California accounted for more than 56 percent of total in-state generation for 2017 and this rapidly climbing trend shows no signs of an abrupt stop.
We can and should start planning now, but no need to fret about wringing out the hardest last 20% electric generation of CO2 in CA. The nation could catch up for a fraction of the cost.
That's not really a problem for the grid. It's a matter of choice for the individual.
We are not in the top 1% by income and substantially farther by wealth. Our solar and 2 vehicles (BEV and plug-in) were acquired several years ago when doing so was more expensive than now. Our entire home (all electricity including AC, heating air and water, etc) and vehicles are net zero from our home solar. These technologies are more affordable today and it's doable without large compromises in lifestyle. There are others further ahead in these endeavors and we hope to do more.
Some "batteries" are rather inexpensive and can be easily paired with home solar. Take the heat pump water heater. This is "battery" technology already matured and ready to deploy. Homes could purchase over-sized heat pump water units that can heat the water during the day or any time there is excess wind or other electricity, then store that for hot water use later. The benefits to smoothing out peak electric demands here are substantial. There are plenty of mature technologies like this to deploy.
Would like to see federal credits (re)applied to heat pumps as we have had with plug-ins and solar.
We can and should start planning now, but no need to fret about wringing out the hardest last 20% electric generation of CO2 in CA. The nation could catch up for a fraction of the cost.
Oilpan4 said:
That's not really a problem for the grid. It's a matter of choice for the individual.
We are not in the top 1% by income and substantially farther by wealth. Our solar and 2 vehicles (BEV and plug-in) were acquired several years ago when doing so was more expensive than now. Our entire home (all electricity including AC, heating air and water, etc) and vehicles are net zero from our home solar. These technologies are more affordable today and it's doable without large compromises in lifestyle. There are others further ahead in these endeavors and we hope to do more.
Some "batteries" are rather inexpensive and can be easily paired with home solar. Take the heat pump water heater. This is "battery" technology already matured and ready to deploy. Homes could purchase over-sized heat pump water units that can heat the water during the day or any time there is excess wind or other electricity, then store that for hot water use later. The benefits to smoothing out peak electric demands here are substantial. There are plenty of mature technologies like this to deploy.
Would like to see federal credits (re)applied to heat pumps as we have had with plug-ins and solar.
What are these cheap batteries for use with solar I would like to know.
I bought a new forklift battery from the scrap yard for about $40 per kwh, can these batteries beat that?
I have a hot water heat pump.
Using hot water to store solar sounds like a lot of hot water.
I figure I can provide all my hot water with a 1 square meter thermal collector.
Over all water heating is a tiny amount of power a home uses.
Then if you want to store hot water for space heating you are going to need literally tons of water.
An over sized hot water tank is only going to hold about 50,000 BTUs of heat. That's plenty of domestic hot water. But for home heating it's not very much.
A house would have to be built around or above a very large hot water storage tank.
To fit an existing home is possible but would be very expensive and would require more plumbing and active pumping.
I just use a coal furnace that mostly burns wood for most of my heating.
I save the coal on the real cold nights.
I bought a new forklift battery from the scrap yard for about $40 per kwh, can these batteries beat that?
I have a hot water heat pump.
Using hot water to store solar sounds like a lot of hot water.
I figure I can provide all my hot water with a 1 square meter thermal collector.
Over all water heating is a tiny amount of power a home uses.
Then if you want to store hot water for space heating you are going to need literally tons of water.
An over sized hot water tank is only going to hold about 50,000 BTUs of heat. That's plenty of domestic hot water. But for home heating it's not very much.
A house would have to be built around or above a very large hot water storage tank.
To fit an existing home is possible but would be very expensive and would require more plumbing and active pumping.
I just use a coal furnace that mostly burns wood for most of my heating.
I save the coal on the real cold nights.
iPlug
Well-known member
We are a family of 4, currently using 5 kWh daily with the 65 gallon water heater during the winter time (showers, washing machine, dishwasher, and sinks). This is closer to 3 kWh daily in the summer. Going to an 80 gallon tank would only have cost us $100-200 more. Appliances report energy use data with significant granularity these days.
Just had in-laws here for 2 weeks and the heat pump water heater was using almost 8 kWh daily during that interval. We used ~1400 kWh over the last 12 months. That's not a minor amount of electricity use with this very efficient, late model, heat pump. By comparison, in 2017, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10.4 megawatt hours, so just our heat pump water heater used 13.5% of the national total household electricity average.
As to the question about what this battery costs, it is amazing ~nothing. The math works out like this: we have to heat our water, so we didn't buy an appliance we wouldn't already have to acquire. Were it not this, we would have purchased a natural gas unit. Yes, the unit was several hundred more than just replacing it with a gas water heater, but we can average that out over the life of the unit which comes to little/month. Then the electricity cost: utilities give away electricity for free when there is a surplus. This is done at the grid level and consumer level in different places. It may not be done with my particular utility, but there is no technical or significant cost reason why not.
Just had in-laws here for 2 weeks and the heat pump water heater was using almost 8 kWh daily during that interval. We used ~1400 kWh over the last 12 months. That's not a minor amount of electricity use with this very efficient, late model, heat pump. By comparison, in 2017, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10.4 megawatt hours, so just our heat pump water heater used 13.5% of the national total household electricity average.
As to the question about what this battery costs, it is amazing ~nothing. The math works out like this: we have to heat our water, so we didn't buy an appliance we wouldn't already have to acquire. Were it not this, we would have purchased a natural gas unit. Yes, the unit was several hundred more than just replacing it with a gas water heater, but we can average that out over the life of the unit which comes to little/month. Then the electricity cost: utilities give away electricity for free when there is a surplus. This is done at the grid level and consumer level in different places. It may not be done with my particular utility, but there is no technical or significant cost reason why not.
LTLFTcomposite
Well-known member
The area is going downhill, gangs moving in on nearby areas so probably won't be able to keep the property long enough to get the payback.SageBrush said:
GRA
Well-known member
Before going with a heat pump (a good idea generally), solar water heating is an excellent idea. Although it tends to be overshadowed by PV nowadays because the latter is sexier, it's far more efficient than PV typically (100+ watts/m^2 vice 10-15W/m^2 for PV) and the payback is usually much faster. So. leave some space on your roof for those solar water heating panels.
iPlug
Well-known member
Agree that it would make more sense to add solar heating before ripping out a perfectly functional new natural gas water heater and replacing it with a heat pump.
But one still needs a water heater (at least for the winter) and solar heating and a heat pump water heater are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can make a great pair.
There should be pressure to have heat pump water heaters the de facto water heater in new construction in many climate zones and significant incentives to upgrade to one too.
But one still needs a water heater (at least for the winter) and solar heating and a heat pump water heater are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they can make a great pair.
There should be pressure to have heat pump water heaters the de facto water heater in new construction in many climate zones and significant incentives to upgrade to one too.
There's always some one who will buy a used non-leaking hot water heater.
I bought a spare hot water heater from a yard sale where the family gutted their entire house and redid it, sold all the old appliances. The date on the hot water heater said it was 4 years old, I looked in side with a flash light and couldn't find any rust. Figured I couldn't get one like that for $50 any where else, I will use it as a spare, or in solar or coal furnace hot water heating experiments.
Using virtually 0 electrical power to heat all my water for most of the year would be pretty nice.
When the hot water heater rusts through its only worth about $5 to the scrap yard.
I bought a spare hot water heater from a yard sale where the family gutted their entire house and redid it, sold all the old appliances. The date on the hot water heater said it was 4 years old, I looked in side with a flash light and couldn't find any rust. Figured I couldn't get one like that for $50 any where else, I will use it as a spare, or in solar or coal furnace hot water heating experiments.
Using virtually 0 electrical power to heat all my water for most of the year would be pretty nice.
When the hot water heater rusts through its only worth about $5 to the scrap yard.
