+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 45
Latest: bella2
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 11866
Total Topics: 254
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 0
Total: 1

Author Topic: Carbon Neutral Buildings  (Read 4254 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21551
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
« Reply #60 on: June 28, 2018, 05:29:51 pm »

By Natural Resources Defense Council

Jun. 25, 2018 11:52AM EST

Clean Electric Heating Already Cost-Effective for Many  

By Pierre Delforge

A new report bolsters the case for widespread electrification of heat ⚡  and hot water ⚡ in buildings.

The report by the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)  finds that replacing onsite use of fossil fuels in buildings by efficient and flexible electric ⚡ heating is a key component of the deep decarbonization necessary to limit global average temperature increase to 2°C.

It also concludes that if our country is to reach decarbonization goals, it will require eliminating most or all of the pollution generated by the burning of fossil fuels in furnaces and water heaters, along with other measures.

The report reinforces the findings of an earlier NRDC study, which cites broad electrification of buildings, factories and vehicles as among the ambitious but achievable actions needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 and stave off the worst effects of climate change.

NRDC's report, America's Clean Energy Frontier: The Pathway to a Safer Climate Future, envisions roughly 90 percent of U.S. residential and commercial buildings to use electric space- and water-heating appliances by 2050, up from just under half today. It also calls for boosting the use of electric vehicles so that they represent about 30 percent of new vehicle sales by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050.

Both reports highlight the benefits of using electricity from an increasingly clean grid in place of fossil fuels like natural gas for space and water heating, an often overlooked, but critical path for reducing carbon pollution.

RMI's report, The Economics of Electrifying Buildings, notes that electrification ⚡ can deliver cost savings, especially for new home construction, oil and propane customers, and homes that bundle electrification with rooftop solar.

When owners of existing homes install or replace an air conditioner at the same time as they electrify heating, electrification costs roughly the same as a new gas furnace and A/C. And this is when home electrification is still avant-garde, and early adopters pay premium prices for equipment, installation and electricity use. As the market develops, competition increases, and utilities offer electric rates that better reflect the cost of supplying energy at different times of day, electrification costs will come down, making it the more cost-effective option for most Americans.

Electric space and water heating also can be managed to shift energy consumption in time, aiding the cost-effective integration of large amounts of renewable energy onto the grid, the report notes. This can further reduce carbon pollution and generate utility bill savings. This is already becoming important in states like California which have committed to ramping up their use of clean energy like solar and wind power.

Both reports are must reads for state and local officials who have moved to pick up the slack on climate action in the absence of Washington's leadership in confronting the crisis. The authors have the following recommendations for utilities, regulators and policymakers:

1. Prioritize rapid electrification of buildings currently using propane and heating oil in space and water heating.

2. Stop supporting the expansion of the natural gas distribution system, including for new construction.

3. Bundle demand flexibility programs, new rate designs, and energy efficiency with electrification initiatives.

4. Expand demand flexibility options for existing electric space and water heating loads.

5. Update energy efficiency resource standards and related goals to account for total energy reduction across fuels (fossil fuels and electricity).

California, long a clean energy trendsetter, has already taken steps to promote electrification in transportation and in buildings.

But more can—and must—be done.

California is considering legislation that would promote building decarbonization.

Assembly Bill 3232, which has passed the Assembly and is now before the Senate, would require the California Energy Commission to assess how best to reduce emissions from residential and commercial buildings by at least 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2030.

Senate Bill 1477, which has passed the Senate and is before the Assembly, would require the energy commission to develop two programs: the first to provide incentives for designers and builders to innovate and build near-zero emissions new buildings; the second to spur the market development of clean heating technologies such as high-efficiency heat pumps.

The fossil fuels and the electricity we use in buildings are responsible for roughly one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and natural gas and propane burned for space and water heating are the largest source of those emissions.

Nationally, the burning of fossil fuels for space and water heating in buildings generates 560 million tons of carbon pollution each year, a tenth of total U.S. emissions, the RMI study notes.

Substituting electricity for fossil fuels to heat homes and businesses could cut U.S. carbon pollution by 10 percent, the RMI study says.

But building electrification faces challenges, such as low consumer awareness of the benefits and availability of the technology, limited contractor expertise and higher upfront costs for high-efficiency products.

SB 1477 would help reduce costs by developing the market for clean heating technologies in the way that California's Solar Initiative has driven the growth of solar in the state. As RMI's analysis points out, the cost of new heating technology such as heat pumps will decline as the market grows.

As RMI's and NRDC's reports spell out, electrification offers significant opportunities to cut harmful pollution, and reduce utility bills, two critical opportunities to help mitigate California's air pollution and housing affordability challenges.

We now need to turn the opportunities into action.

RMI press releases are always so rosy. Its very hard to do heating on renewables in the more northern climes. The mismatch between sun hours and heat requirements is hard to overcome. Banked hydro and massive wind deployment but still.  The new generation of heat pumps hold promise but it locks you into a grid dependant net metered scenario.  I dislike grid tied. It has its uses but you have to buy in to all the losses and costs of a large grid and it does not foster conservation or resiliency.  I will be moving to solar electric hot water for summertime usage within two years Far too much solar in the summer so use it or loose it. For winter time heat I'll stick to my wood stove.
Cheers,   David

As long as you do what you are presently doing to keep your family happy and healthy, you are a credit to the human species in regard to prudent energy use. That said, remember that most people live in urban environments where they cannot go out and chop some wood, as you can. I live in a wooded area and am prohibited from touching any tree in my rented lot for any reason.

In regard to your view that RMI likes to paint "rosy" scenarios, I beg to differ. That group of scientists as as hard nosed as they come. Their Chief Scientist, Amory Lovins (he is a physicist), way back in the 1980's, designed and built his own fluid measurement instruments, Said instrument data forced the college textbooks on fluid dynamics to be rewritten. The math formulas were wrong. Amory Lovins proved they were wrong. Mechanical Engineers, because they used these faulty math formulas to design the air conditioner compressors and radiators and pipes that fed gasses or liquids into and out of machinery, from giant power plants to lawn mowers, had inadvertently reduced their efficiency by several percentage points. 👎 

Please do NOT say that RMI is painting "rosy" scenarios, David. This society owes RMI BIG TIME for many improvements in refrigeration technology and pipe design, never mind their massive contributions to insulation efficiency in buildings.

RMI did the reinsulating and heating and cooling efficiency maximizing work on the Empire State Building some years back. That building now saves well over one million dollars a year in energy costs. That isn't "rosy", that is real. When Amory Lovins makes the claim that our society can run with 80% less energy, that is not based on happy talk or hopium speculation, it is based on hard nosed scientific, real world analysis of how energy is used and abused in our civilization. It's not "rosy scenario" talk.

Here's what Amory Lovins says about the typical reaction to his claims:

Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are protected by public incredulity. - Amory Lovins

In order for you to know how serious, how detailed, how thorough and how reality based Amory Lovins and his Associates at the Rocky Mountain Institute are, please copy these videos and watch them when you aren't busy. Your Expert Crafstman comprehensive knowledge of building techniques, energy use and insulation materials, as well level of unnecessary energy use inefficiency our civilization operates under will get some good, money making tips from watching these videos. Amory Lovins knows his applied energy use science.

You misunderstand. I love RMI, get all the emails, watch the videos etc. That is not what I mean by rosy. Their numbers always work they are always right on.  This would be a long drawn out series of posts so I won't go into it if you do not see it yourself. No time, no energy.
cheers, David

Sorry David, but the term "rosy" has a connotation of not being real world. Why do you think I would assume otherwise? I do not get it.

I too love RMI. I am glad you share my respect for all the solutions they propose. I apologize if I misunderstood you. They want everybody to go electric. I do too. You said that was a "rosy" scenario. You then said you were going to follow a different path. What, exactly did I miss?
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.


+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 11:18:39 pm

Sustainable Farming by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 09:34:15 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 08:50:56 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 07:32:57 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 06:19:35 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 05:53:45 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 02:33:40 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
April 22, 2019, 12:43:08 pm

Genocide by AGelbert
April 20, 2019, 08:04:06 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
April 20, 2019, 02:31:16 pm