Climate change mitigation strategies

[TrMama]

One thing to keep in mind with gas in the US is even though the per gallon cost is lower here, distances driven in the US are higher compared to Europe so the cost for a single driving trip is actually higher in the US than in most of Europe.

These two things don't exist in isolation. The fact that gas is cheap allows more people to drive further. If gas were priced like it is in the rest of the world, you'd all figure out very quickly how to drive less.

[magus]

One thing to keep in mind with gas in the US is even though the per gallon cost is lower here, distances driven in the US are higher compared to Europe so the cost for a single driving trip is actually higher in the US than in most of Europe.

These two things don't exist in isolation. The fact that gas is cheap allows more people to drive further. If gas were priced like it is in the rest of the world, you'd all figure out very quickly how to drive less.

Perhaps, or perhaps they'd simply driving somewhat more fuel efficient vehicles, or perhaps cut expenses elsewhere or save less or likely some combination of all of those and other considerations. Americans, even super liberals, love their big SUVs and driving. I only drive about 5k miles with zero effort a year (with DW half that, neither of us bike at all) while the average American drives about 15k/yr and the average vehicle size keeps getting bigger and bigger. Really has amazed me how resilient driving has been in the US no matter how much gas prices go up or down.

My main point was though when someone in my area for example thinks about vising the beach or the mountains, even though gas is going to be $3.25 here vs $5-6 in most of Europe, the distance is 2x+, so the cost is similar so the go/no go decision from an *economic cost* is roughly the same on an individual level.

[brandon1827]

Yeah...I think this is absolutely spot on...so much so that instead of downsizing, companies are now trying to make their giant vehicles electric instead. Ford has proposed to build a "mega-site" in Tennessee to manufacture electric F-150s. Hummer, Chevy, & Nissan also have giant electric trucks in the works for 2022. So I guess more liberal leaning folks who love their big trucks/SUVs can get the electric version to save on gas, but I'm not sure how high the price of gas would need to get to prevent Americans from driving

[maizefolk]

I disagree, 0.2 is not much and actually within the standard error (iow not statistically significant) AND would cost tens of trillions of dollars to achieve. You could allocate that $ significantly better to actually preserve the environment and human life than that.

I think this does not mean what you think it means. The business as usual scenario has the earth warming 4.5C by 2100. Sure that estimate could be off one way or another. If you're seeing estimates that cutting US emissions would be enough to chop 0.2C off that projection* and the overall standard error in projections is greater than that it doesn't mean we don't know with confidence that cutting US emissions will alter the projection. We just don't know if it would be from 4.7 to 4.5, from 4.5 to 4.3 or from 4.3 to 4.1. Because the human suffering caused by global warning scales with the degree of change, any of those three scenarios is still valuable.

However, I'm guessing your 0.2 degree number either comes from looking at shorter term warming (2050? 2030?) and/or doesn't account for future growth in US emissions under a business as usual scenario. Would you be willing to link to the study/source in question?

Lastly, Thorium nuclear energy is *cheap* safe and an easy way to massively reduce our CO2 yet climate change groups actively oppose this. Until Governments and these groups start pushing thorium nuclear I could not care one iota what they want me to do as its obvious that GW is just being used to usher in social and economic change and not actually fix the stated problem.

I agree. It's atrocious that we're not seeing more investment in cheap modular and scaleable nuclear reactors (thorium and otherwise). I supported the one candidate in 2020 who I'm aware of backing investment in new nuclear reactors AND thorium reactors. I'll continue to do so in the future.

But saying "I don't support addressing climate change unless everyone else who wants to address climate change agrees with my on the strategy for doing so" is the very definition of cutting off you nose to spite your face. There are lots of stupid people out there in the world and unfortunately some forms of political activism tends to concentrate them because it lets them interpret any disagreement with them about facts or logic to be "you're one of those bad people who believes the exact opposite of everything I believe." Don't let your own views be dictated by just doing the exact opposite of whatever the people you don't like want, or you're placing yourself just as much under their power as if you do whatever they want you to do.

0.2 is a rounding error in their models and is not statistically significant. The #s all came out of the Paris Accord 6 years ago and was the 2100 #. Remember the US is only ~15% of CO2 today and rapidly dropping as a share of the tota - this is not like back in 1980s when scientist first started saying we had 5, 10 years left when the US was over 1/3 of CO2 share in the world. I haven't saved them but will look for them this week and post them here but you can probably find it with some googling.

I had tried googling and couldn't find a good study looking specifically at the "what would happen if the USA's emissions went to zero but everything else continued the same" scenario.. That's why I asked for a link.

I will look forward to you tracking it down this week and will check back with you on Friday. Thanks @magus.

[PDXTabs]

I had tried googling and couldn't find a good study looking specifically at the "what would happen if the USA's emissions went to zero but everything else continued the same" scenario.. That's why I asked for a link.

I will look forward to you tracking it down this week and will check back with you on Friday. Thanks @magus.

But that isn't the world that we live in. The EU and UK are working hard to reduce their emissions. We aren't going to see a world where every place is business as usual except for the USA.

[maizefolk]

I had tried googling and couldn't find a good study looking specifically at the "what would happen if the USA's emissions went to zero but everything else continued the same" scenario.. That's why I asked for a link.

I will look forward to you tracking it down this week and will check back with you on Friday. Thanks @magus.

But that isn't the world that we live in. The EU and UK are working hard to reduce their emissions. We aren't going to see a world where every place is business as usual except for the USA.

I agree, which may be why it's hard to find studies on it. But since magnus is making the number a key part of their position I'm still interested to read where it came from.

I don't think "not statistically significance" means what they are interpreting it to mean in this context. But I could be wrong. Will wait for the link.

[Wintergreen78]

I disagree, 0.2 is not much and actually within the standard error (iow not statistically significant) AND would cost tens of trillions of dollars to achieve. You could allocate that $ significantly better to actually preserve the environment and human life than that.

I think this does not mean what you think it means. The business as usual scenario has the earth warming 4.5C by 2100. Sure that estimate could be off one way or another. If you're seeing estimates that cutting US emissions would be enough to chop 0.2C off that projection* and the overall standard error in projections is greater than that it doesn't mean we don't know with confidence that cutting US emissions will alter the projection. We just don't know if it would be from 4.7 to 4.5, from 4.5 to 4.3 or from 4.3 to 4.1. Because the human suffering caused by global warning scales with the degree of change, any of those three scenarios is still valuable.

However, I'm guessing your 0.2 degree number either comes from looking at shorter term warming (2050? 2030?) and/or doesn't account for future growth in US emissions under a business as usual scenario. Would you be willing to link to the study/source in question?

Lastly, Thorium nuclear energy is *cheap* safe and an easy way to massively reduce our CO2 yet climate change groups actively oppose this. Until Governments and these groups start pushing thorium nuclear I could not care one iota what they want me to do as its obvious that GW is just being used to usher in social and economic change and not actually fix the stated problem.

I agree. It's atrocious that we're not seeing more investment in cheap modular and scaleable nuclear reactors (thorium and otherwise). I supported the one candidate in 2020 who I'm aware of backing investment in new nuclear reactors AND thorium reactors. I'll continue to do so in the future.

But saying "I don't support addressing climate change unless everyone else who wants to address climate change agrees with my on the strategy for doing so" is the very definition of cutting off you nose to spite your face. There are lots of stupid people out there in the world and unfortunately some forms of political activism tends to concentrate them because it lets them interpret any disagreement with them about facts or logic to be "you're one of those bad people who believes the exact opposite of everything I believe." Don't let your own views be dictated by just doing the exact opposite of whatever the people you don't like want, or you're placing yourself just as much under their power as if you do whatever they want you to do.

0.2 is a rounding error in their models and is not statistically significant. The #s all came out of the Paris Accord 6 years ago and was the 2100 #. Remember the US is only ~15% of CO2 today and rapidly dropping as a share of the tota - this is not like back in 1980s when scientist first started saying we had 5, 10 years left when the US was over 1/3 of CO2 share in the world. I haven't saved them but will look for them this week and post them here but you can probably find it with some googling.

I had tried googling and couldn't find a good study looking specifically at the "what would happen if the USA's emissions went to zero but everything else continued the same" scenario.. That's why I asked for a link.

I will look forward to you tracking it down this week and will check back with you on Friday. Thanks @magus.

I have no idea if that 0.2 number is correct or not. It is irrelevant because the whole argument is nonsense. There is no reasonable scenario where we can slow the rate of warming without worldwide reductions of ghg emissions.

I agree, if the US dramatically reduces emissions and other countries do nothing, then temperatures will continue to rise. But how do you propose to get any sort of global agreement without the US committing to reductions?

The US is the richest country in the world.
The US has the highest per capital ghg emissions of any large country (only Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Kazhakhstan have higher per capita emissions, and each of those countries is equivalent to a large US state)
The US is the second largest GHG emitter in the world. China emits twice as much as the US and has a population over four times larger.

The US absolutely needs to commit to action and to show leadership in getting other countries to also commit to action. No one is arguing that the US is the only country that should do something, so straw man arguments about a scenario that will not occur are a waste of time.

Here is a site that presents the IEA data on emissions in an easily digestible number: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

[Abe]

It’s worth noting that the last time the US produced as much greenhouse gas per capita that equaled the amount European countries and China produce now is estimated ~1930 during the Great Depression. Before that, it was prior to WWI.

Yes china’s emissions are going up drastically. That’s mostly their fault and partly on the rest of the developed world (15-20%). They aren’t making all that junk for themselves (at least not yet, but getting there). Us not buying stuff from China would directly reduce emissions by 15% x 30% = 5-6%, but probably indirectly drop emissions 20% or more from the global recession it’d induce. However as we’ve seen, global recessions are bad and should be avoided.

To magnus’ point: if Europe and the US cut emissions 50%, that’d drop total emissions about 20%. That’s not a rounding error.  If China decreased theirs 50% we’d be down another 20% and at the goal for limiting warming to 1.5C. That’s not completely infeasible.

If the globe as a whole (except US and China) cut emissions by 50% by 2040, that’d be a 30% reduction and keep us below 2C, likely. If China joined, we’d be able to keep it to within 1.5C. So we don’t need every single country (even the big polluters), but efforts of a few high polluters would make a huge dent.

I think 1.5C isn’t feasible anymore and we need to focus on 2C projections. Those are still reachable with modest compromises as sketched above.

[Missy B]

Here to drop two book titles germaine to some of the discussion in the thread.

Happy City by Charles Montgomery (what if cities were designed to optimize happiness instead of car travel?)
https://www.amazon.ca/Happy-City-Transforming-Through-Design/dp/0385669143/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3J9P7L7WV3ZB&dchild=1&keywords=happy+city+charles+montgomery&qid=1634618994&sr=8-1

The Day the World Stops Shopping by JB McKinnon (explores alternatives to an economy based on relentless growth)
https://www.amazon.ca/World-Stops-Shopping-J-B-MacKinnon/dp/073527553X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=162H0WH6FR7DR&dchild=1&keywords=the+day+the+world+stops+shopping&qid=1634619071&s=books&sr=1-1

[PDXTabs]

Happy City by Charles Montgomery (what if cities were designed to optimize happiness instead of car travel?)
https://www.amazon.ca/Happy-City-Transforming-Through-Design/dp/0385669143/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3J9P7L7WV3ZB&dchild=1&keywords=happy+city+charles+montgomery&qid=1634618994&sr=8-1

A friend got this for me for Christmas. It's an awesome book!

[maizefolk]

I have no idea if that 0.2 number is correct or not. It is irrelevant because the whole argument is nonsense. There is no reasonable scenario where we can slow the rate of warming without worldwide reductions of ghg emissions.

I agree, if the US dramatically reduces emissions and other countries do nothing, then temperatures will continue to rise. But how do you propose to get any sort of global agreement without the US committing to reductions?

The US is the richest country in the world.
The US has the highest per capital ghg emissions of any large country (only Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Kazhakhstan have higher per capita emissions, and each of those countries is equivalent to a large US state)
The US is the second largest GHG emitter in the world. China emits twice as much as the US and has a population over four times larger.

The US absolutely needs to commit to action and to show leadership in getting other countries to also commit to action. No one is arguing that the US is the only country that should do something, so straw man arguments about a scenario that will not occur are a waste of time.

Here is a site that presents the IEA data on emissions in an easily digestible number: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

I don't propose to do so. I simply asked someone who kept arguing that what the US does is "statistically insignificant" and repeated a number associated with that claim repeatedly to provide a link to back up their two claims.

From the tone of you post, you seem to have interpreted me asking them to find the source of the number they were using (and the source of their claim that US emissions play a "statistically insignificant" role in determining global rises in temperature) as agreement with their argument the US doesn't need to reduce our emissions?

Edit: Just to clarify, I am very much in favor of the USA working to further reduce our emissions: further incentivizing efficiency in new home construction and retrofits, further electrifying the transportation sector, and shifting more of the electrical grid to non-carbon emitting sources including renewables and small modular nuclear reactors. I think we should do these things with or without international agreements.

[Wintergreen78]

I have no idea if that 0.2 number is correct or not. It is irrelevant because the whole argument is nonsense. There is no reasonable scenario where we can slow the rate of warming without worldwide reductions of ghg emissions.

I agree, if the US dramatically reduces emissions and other countries do nothing, then temperatures will continue to rise. But how do you propose to get any sort of global agreement without the US committing to reductions?

The US is the richest country in the world.
The US has the highest per capital ghg emissions of any large country (only Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Kazhakhstan have higher per capita emissions, and each of those countries is equivalent to a large US state)
The US is the second largest GHG emitter in the world. China emits twice as much as the US and has a population over four times larger.

The US absolutely needs to commit to action and to show leadership in getting other countries to also commit to action. No one is arguing that the US is the only country that should do something, so straw man arguments about a scenario that will not occur are a waste of time.

Here is a site that presents the IEA data on emissions in an easily digestible number: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

I don't propose to do so. I simply asked someone who kept arguing that what the US does is "statistically insignificant" and repeated a number associated with that claim repeatedly to provide a link to back up their two claims.

From the tone of you post, you seem to have interpreted me asking them to find the source of the number they were using (and the source of their claim that US emissions play a "statistically insignificant" role in determining global rises in temperature) as agreement with their argument the US doesn't need to reduce our emissions?

Edit: Just to clarify, I am very much in favor of the USA working to further reduce our emissions: further incentivizing efficiency in new home construction and retrofits, further electrifying the transportation sector, and shifting more of the electrical grid to non-carbon emitting sources including renewables and small modular nuclear reactors. I think we should do these things with or without international agreements.

I don’t take your question as agreement, but I completely disagree with the original argument.

[Abe]

@Syonyk thanks for your thoughtful replies. I appreciate the reality check you give us all! When you get back I’d hope to get your thoughts on small-scale wind.

[TrMama]

Here to drop two book titles germaine to some of the discussion in the thread.

Happy City by Charles Montgomery (what if cities were designed to optimize happiness instead of car travel?)
https://www.amazon.ca/Happy-City-Transforming-Through-Design/dp/0385669143/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3J9P7L7WV3ZB&dchild=1&keywords=happy+city+charles+montgomery&qid=1634618994&sr=8-1

The Day the World Stops Shopping by JB McKinnon (explores alternatives to an economy based on relentless growth)
https://www.amazon.ca/World-Stops-Shopping-J-B-MacKinnon/dp/073527553X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=162H0WH6FR7DR&dchild=1&keywords=the+day+the+world+stops+shopping&qid=1634619071&s=books&sr=1-1

I'd just like to point out the irony that you can buy a book called The Day the World Stops Shopping on Amazon. I'll see if my library has a copy.

I recently used a carbon footprint calculator to run a basic audit of my own carbon footprint. I don't consider myself to be much of a consumerist, but the biggest portion of my personal carbon footprint by far was for "stuff". Things like basic clothing, replacing worn out housewares, etc. Pharmaceuticals also came up as a huge part of my footprint. Ironically, this is all for asthma medication, which is probably needed partly due to breathing dirty air for 40+ years.

[scantee]

Here to drop two book titles germaine to some of the discussion in the thread.

Happy City by Charles Montgomery (what if cities were designed to optimize happiness instead of car travel?)
https://www.amazon.ca/Happy-City-Transforming-Through-Design/dp/0385669143/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3J9P7L7WV3ZB&dchild=1&keywords=happy+city+charles+montgomery&qid=1634618994&sr=8-1

The Day the World Stops Shopping by JB McKinnon (explores alternatives to an economy based on relentless growth)
https://www.amazon.ca/World-Stops-Shopping-J-B-MacKinnon/dp/073527553X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=162H0WH6FR7DR&dchild=1&keywords=the+day+the+world+stops+shopping&qid=1634619071&s=books&sr=1-1

I'd just like to point out the irony that you can buy a book called The Day the World Stops Shopping on Amazon. I'll see if my library has a copy.

I recently used a carbon footprint calculator to run a basic audit of my own carbon footprint. I don't consider myself to be much of a consumerist, but the biggest portion of my personal carbon footprint by far was for "stuff". Things like basic clothing, replacing worn out housewares, etc. Pharmaceuticals also came up as a huge part of my footprint. Ironically, this is all for asthma medication, which is probably needed partly due to breathing dirty air for 40+ years.

Do you have a link this calculator? Curious the method they use to calculate this. For most Americans at least, the two lifestyle behaviors that most impact their footprint are housing and car usage. We don’t live densely and related to that we use our cars way too much. Change those two things and you’re done. You’re doing way more to benefit the climate than environmentalists who twist themselves into knots with solar panels, composting, recycling, electric cars, etc. That’s why generally speaking the people with the lowest footprint in the US are residents of NYC who don’t own cars.

[TrMama]

https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

No idea of the methodology. The first tab asks for your location. I assume my household energy consumption is calculated as being low because we mostly use electricity and live in BC, which is 100% hydro. The small amount of natural gas we use generates much more CO2 than the hydro usage. I also don't drive much. However, I was still surprised at how much "stuff" affected my overall footprint. Apparently my asthma meds alone generate 5.31 tons per year, more than any other line item, including food for 4 people.

[former player]

I used a different calculator from my (green energy) supplier and my biggest carbon footprint by far was the laptop I bought to replace an 8 year old one that was failing.

[scantee]

https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

No idea of the methodology. The first tab asks for your location. I assume my household energy consumption is calculated as being low because we mostly use electricity and live in BC, which is 100% hydro. The small amount of natural gas we use generates much more CO2 than the hydro usage. I also don't drive much. However, I was still surprised at how much "stuff" affected my overall footprint. Apparently my asthma meds alone generate 5.31 tons per year, more than any other line item, including food for 4 people.

Thanks!

It is interesting because for ‘secondary’ factors like food consumption, use of pharmaceuticals, etc., the calculation is based on manufacture, delivery, and disposal. But for housing and transportation it looks like those are not included, the calculation is based on current energy usage. But that can’t be right and if it is it seems like a big oversight.

Anyway, not intended to pick on you, just that this is an oversight I’ve seen before so I’m always a bit skeptical of these calculators.

[PDXTabs]

I for one welcome your input in such discussions.  It’s a nice change from the cliff-notes version of the same pro/con arguments typically presented whenever the subject of solar energy comes up.

This is one of the few places on the internet that doesn't try to run me off for refusing to take one of the accepted positions about energy, at least...  though I assume I'd get run off in a hurry if I persisted in linking to long form writing I'd done offsite, because of self promotion rules or something that probably don't exist.

I appreciate your content here and would encourage you to share links. I really like people that buck status-quo thinking, even if I don't always agree with them.

I would like to see this become a more common topic of discussion. It’s not just limited to energy either - in just the last 75 years we’ve come to expect that we should be able to eat whatever foods we want, use however much water we’d like and travel wherever we want to go largely regardless of the season or current weather.  My dad - who is otherwise very environmentally oriented - sees this as some sort of human triumph.everything is always available and affordable!
There was even a raucous climate change thread on this forum where a couple of posters flat-out rejected the notion that we ought to simply consume less overall with regards to energy because that to them indicated the opposite of “progress”.

If you want a decently written book on this subject, Bright Green Lies (by the Deep Green Resistance people - their bias is that industrial civilization is simply incompatible with the planet and they argue well for it) talks a lot about how much actual mining and such is going to be required to do the whole "Try to maintain current power systems with renewables" things.  Nobody tends to translate from "windmills needed" to "number of mountaintops that will be blasted into valleys" - though Jenssen and crew do the math on it and it's not pretty.  They point out, rightly, that even formerly environmental groups like the Sierra Club have moved over the past decade to "Well, we have to be able to maintain our modern industrial ways of living but without causing climate change."  Even if you have to strip mine whole countries to get the materials to do it.

I just ordered a copy. Chris Hedges has good things to say about it and that's enough for me.

[Arbitrage]

I'm far from an expert on agriculture, but I know there are a lot of different factors.

The most obvious difference in buying local produce is in the transportation, but even here there isn't always a clear-cut benefit for buying local. Just pulling numbers out of thin air here, but if your apple traveled 1,000 miles in a full semi truck there's a good chance it used less carbon in transportation than if you bought an apple from someone who traveled 50 miles in a half-full pickup truck to sell their artisanal produce at the farmer's market.

The Project Drawdown folks think the bulk of the climate change benefit from food waste reduction will come from the fact that more efficient food production will mean less deforestation etc. to feed a growing population.

From what I've read, transportation is generally only a small factor in the carbon emissions for food, unless that food was transported via airplane or something.  Rice shipped halfway around the world is still far less carbon-intensive per calorie than locally sourced beef.  What you eat is far more important than where it was grown, at least for carbon emissions.  That's not to say you should ignore the factor, just that there are more important things to focus on.

Of course, you also don't want to be the guy buying fresh mozzarella flown in from Italy that morning.

[roomtempmayo]

I'm not sure how high the price of gas would need to get to prevent Americans from driving

If I recall correctly, the last time gas in the US broke $4/gallon, driving reduced temporarily, but quickly reverted back to the norm.  In even the medium term, I suspect demand for gas is pretty much inelastic in the US.

There's that old line about every time a Russian government has taxed vodka it's led to a revolution that might be applicable here, but in the US our vodka is driving, processed food, and air conditioning.  Touch any of them and things would get real in a hurry.

[PDXTabs]

I'm not sure how high the price of gas would need to get to prevent Americans from driving

If I recall correctly, the last time gas in the US broke $4/gallon, driving reduced temporarily, but quickly reverted back to the norm.  In even the medium term, I suspect demand for gas is pretty much inelastic in the US.

Not really. Total miles driven peaked in November 2007 (well, technically the 12 month moving window) and didn't recover until March of 2015. And that isn't even vehicle miles per-capita, that's total vehicle miles driven in the country. Of course there were lots of other things going on in that time period.

[GuitarStv]

Of course, you also don't want to be the guy buying fresh mozzarella flown in from Italy that morning.

Maybe not from an environmental perspective . . . but I have to figure that fresh mozzarella man is doing pretty well for himself.  :D

[Just Joe]

Interesting, concept. In terms of the nuts and bolts its basically just a well insulated home with solar panels right?

What does a solar array cost that can generate 1000 kilowatt hours a month? Ok some quick googling here, making some big assumptions. Feel free to disagree or quote better sources.

Average house is ~1000 kw a month
That requires a 25kw solar system.
That costs ~25k just for the panels themselves. https://sunwatts.com/25-kw-solar-kits/
Maybe about 5-10k for the install?
Another 5-10k in upgraded insulation, windows and doors?

So you are looking at nearly 40k MORE for a net zero house? Maybe I am off on how the achieve the result but the low hanging fruit for energy efficient has mostly been put into the code years ago. I mean if you think hat is a good use of your dollars I absolutely think you should do that. I myself really want to go solar, probably will in the not too distant future than the EV would be next.

I just don't understand how we can add 40k to the cost of a house and scream about the affordability crisis. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that we should do nothing, I am just saying there are tradeoffs. I mean we could build a ton of solar/wind plants for 40k a house right? Basically if we are thinking in the macro/aggregate sense here having extremely dispersed solar generation is an inefficient way to do things?

Final disclaimer, I know nothing about how they build houses in CA, but I gotta image there are more expensive then hose they build them in most of the rest of the country due to fires/earthquakes etc.

$40K more for a netzero house but what have property prices done this year? They've risen far more than $40K around here for nice homes.

If $40K is what it took to have a comfortable home in future uncertain times when utilities were unreliable or expensive, I think people who could afford it would consider it.

I know people who put in home generators this year because of the unusual week long ice storm we had last winter. This isn't Texas but some people did endure a lack of electricity that lasted the week. They are spending $7500+ to get gas lines laid, propane tanks installed, etc.

For an EV owner, the payback on solar panels will be even faster.

[Just Joe]

Things I am about to do: I'm trying to find allies to get the church, school and town to reduce their use of two stroke engines in landscaping.  Acres of lawn are unnecessary, wasteful, and expensive to keep up. Smarter landscaping may also reduce flooding.

Distilling the above results, the four-stroke Ryobi leaf blower kicked out 6.8 times more NOx, 13.5 times more CO and more than 36 times more NMHC than the Raptor.

The two-stroke leaf blower was worse still, generating 23 times the CO and nearly 300 times more NMHC than the crew cab pickup. Let's put that in perspective. To equal the hydrocarbon emissions of about a half-hour of yard work with this two-stroke leaf blower, you'd have to drive a Raptor for 3,887 miles, or the distance from Northern Texas to Anchorage, Alaska.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-car-vs-truck-vs-leaf-blower.html

In the process of researching retrofit kits for lawnmowers, I found this very cool forum "Welcome to EcoModder.com, an automotive community where performance is judged by efficiency and economy rather than power and speed.": https://ecomodder.com/

https://youtu.be/z5kP4g57Ycw

And parts are still available. Two sources specialize in parts for these tractors but honestly much of the tractor's controls are commodity parts that can be sourced anywhere.

I own two of these tractors. Some owners are upgrading the Apollo rocket era controls to modern EV controls. Some are upgrading to used lithium batteries (longer battery life, longer run times).

I run one of my tractors all stock and mow a large yard. For the other one I'm considering upgrading the controls and the batteries at some point as an interesting engineering exercise. At some point I want to add solar to charge them with. In fact all these exercises are well documented already on the web.

PM me for more information.

[former player]

Interesting, concept. In terms of the nuts and bolts its basically just a well insulated home with solar panels right?

What does a solar array cost that can generate 1000 kilowatt hours a month? Ok some quick googling here, making some big assumptions. Feel free to disagree or quote better sources.

Average house is ~1000 kw a month
That requires a 25kw solar system.
That costs ~25k just for the panels themselves. https://sunwatts.com/25-kw-solar-kits/
Maybe about 5-10k for the install?
Another 5-10k in upgraded insulation, windows and doors?

So you are looking at nearly 40k MORE for a net zero house? Maybe I am off on how the achieve the result but the low hanging fruit for energy efficient has mostly been put into the code years ago. I mean if you think hat is a good use of your dollars I absolutely think you should do that. I myself really want to go solar, probably will in the not too distant future than the EV would be next.

I just don't understand how we can add 40k to the cost of a house and scream about the affordability crisis. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that we should do nothing, I am just saying there are tradeoffs. I mean we could build a ton of solar/wind plants for 40k a house right? Basically if we are thinking in the macro/aggregate sense here having extremely dispersed solar generation is an inefficient way to do things?

Final disclaimer, I know nothing about how they build houses in CA, but I gotta image there are more expensive then hose they build them in most of the rest of the country due to fires/earthquakes etc.

$40K more for a netzero house but what have property prices done this year? They've risen far more than $40K around here for nice homes.

If $40K is what it took to have a comfortable home in future uncertain times when utilities were unreliable or expensive, I think people who could afford it would consider it.

I know people who put in home generators this year because of the unusual week long ice storm we had last winter. This isn't Texas but some people did endure a lack of electricity that lasted the week. They are spending $7500+ to get gas lines laid, propane tanks installed, etc.

For an EV owner, the payback on solar panels will be even faster.

Is the average house in the USA really using 1,000kwh a month?

I recently worked out that my monthly usage between April and September this year was 107kwh.  That's for one person in a 3 bed SFH, no heating or air con required because I'm in a (currently) liveable climate.   If the average american household uses 10 times that much energy then that's the problem, rather than how that energy is generated.  Even half that usage rather than my tenth would solve the problem.

[Abe]

Interesting, concept. In terms of the nuts and bolts its basically just a well insulated home with solar panels right?

What does a solar array cost that can generate 1000 kilowatt hours a month? Ok some quick googling here, making some big assumptions. Feel free to disagree or quote better sources.

Average house is ~1000 kw a month
That requires a 25kw solar system.
That costs ~25k just for the panels themselves. https://sunwatts.com/25-kw-solar-kits/
Maybe about 5-10k for the install?
Another 5-10k in upgraded insulation, windows and doors?

So you are looking at nearly 40k MORE for a net zero house? Maybe I am off on how the achieve the result but the low hanging fruit for energy efficient has mostly been put into the code years ago. I mean if you think hat is a good use of your dollars I absolutely think you should do that. I myself really want to go solar, probably will in the not too distant future than the EV would be next.

I just don't understand how we can add 40k to the cost of a house and scream about the affordability crisis. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that we should do nothing, I am just saying there are tradeoffs. I mean we could build a ton of solar/wind plants for 40k a house right? Basically if we are thinking in the macro/aggregate sense here having extremely dispersed solar generation is an inefficient way to do things?

Final disclaimer, I know nothing about how they build houses in CA, but I gotta image there are more expensive then hose they build them in most of the rest of the country due to fires/earthquakes etc.

$40K more for a netzero house but what have property prices done this year? They've risen far more than $40K around here for nice homes.

If $40K is what it took to have a comfortable home in future uncertain times when utilities were unreliable or expensive, I think people who could afford it would consider it.

I know people who put in home generators this year because of the unusual week long ice storm we had last winter. This isn't Texas but some people did endure a lack of electricity that lasted the week. They are spending $7500+ to get gas lines laid, propane tanks installed, etc.

For an EV owner, the payback on solar panels will be even faster.

Is the average house in the USA really using 1,000kwh a month?

I recently worked out that my monthly usage between April and September this year was 107kwh.  That's for one person in a 3 bed SFH, no heating or air con required because I'm in a (currently) liveable climate.   If the average american household uses 10 times that much energy then that's the problem, rather than how that energy is generated.  Even half that usage rather than my tenth would solve the problem.

1000kwh is about right. As you may be aware, SF has milder climate than about 99% of the US landmass. For the rest of us, we need air conditioning or heat to have a reasonable standard of living…

A 8kW solar system should be sufficient for that usage throughout most of the country. If we translated that to a grid scale, a 8MW system would be enough for 1,000 houses and a 8GW system for 1m large suburban houses. The latter would take up about the area of Washington DC if put in one place (extrapolation from existing solar farms).

[Syonyk]

@Syonyk thanks for your thoughtful replies. I appreciate the reality check you give us all! When you get back I’d hope to get your thoughts on small-scale wind.

I've been hailed in enough different threads that I may as well drop in... I still check email and such.  Three days into an indefinite duration water fast.

Small scale wind: Almost, but not entirely, worthless.  Small scale wind you don't build yourself: Entirely worthless, unless you're selling the gizmos.

Literally everything is working against you.  Wind power is proportional to swept area (so square of the diameter), and a cube factor of wind speed (double the wind speed, you get 8x the power).  Small turbines have swept area working against them, and you'll find that their rated power comes at some speed you only get for dozens of hours a year, if that.  Usually by the time you put them up, hanging in the trees/roofs/etc, you don't even get that speed for long.  And with a cube factor working against you, they'll spend most of the year producing next to nothing, and being vibrating pains in the rear in the bargain.

On top of that, you need a lot more complexity in the system than you do for solar.  If solar panels aren't having the energy pulled out, they just... sit there.  So if the battery bank is full, or the grid is offline, a solar panel needs nothing added - just disconnect it from the inverters and it can hang there all year long, if you let it.  Wind can't.  You have to have a diversion load that can take the full output of the turbine, otherwise it will overspeed.  You might be able to do some tricks with shorting the windings and trying to brake the blades that way, but what you've mostly done is use the coils as the blade brake, and that works... until you burn them up, and the turbine overspeeds and is on fire.  So you need a diversion load.  Plus, perhaps, a mechanical blade brake.  It adds substantial cost to the project.

Twenty years or so ago, home built wind turbines (the Otherpower folks were driving a lot of that R&D based off auto hubs and hand carved wooden blades with tilt up mounts) were easily cost competitive and convenience competitive with solar (which, given the panels at the time, tended to be on mechanical trackers to optimize per-watt output - think $10-$20/W for panels, vs $0.50/W now or less).  Anymore, I don't know of many people doing that outside hobby work.  It's easier to just add more panels and a bit more battery than to bother with wind - at that scale.

Go big, and, yeah, wind makes sense.  A 300' diameter turbine (150' radius) has 900 times the swept area of a 10' diameter (5' radius) home turbine, and most of those home/small wind turbines are a lot smaller still (or are staggeringly expensive for the trivial power output you still end up with).  But it just doesn't scale down very well - and, no, whatever hip "new" turbine design someone came up with doesn't matter, they still can't get past the physics of swept area and wind speed.  Vertical turbines and such have been used quite successfully over the years, but there's a reason that most turbines look like what they do, and it's because they're the cheapest for the swept area.  Don't ask about how much concrete goes into the footings of a modern turbine, though, or what the carbon emissions of that concrete are.  They're still a win, but there is a lot of embodied energy in modern turbines.

Is the average house in the USA really using 1,000kwh a month?

Give or take.  Not like it's hard to find the info.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

In 2020, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,715 kilowatthours (kWh), an average of about 893 kWh per month. Louisiana had the highest annual electricity consumption at 14,407 kWh per residential customer, and Hawaii had the lowest at 6,446 kWh per residential customer.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/electricity-use-in-homes.php dives into it in more detail, but, basically, air conditioning, space heating, water heating, lighting, and then the rest.

I recently worked out that my monthly usage between April and September this year was 107kwh.  That's for one person in a 3 bed SFH, no heating or air con required because I'm in a (currently) liveable climate.   If the average american household uses 10 times that much energy then that's the problem, rather than how that energy is generated.  Even half that usage rather than my tenth would solve the problem.

What's your water heating? Either you have an insanely efficient water heater (or don't use any?), or it's gas.  You're averaging about 150W through those months, which... <.<  Is less than our overnight idle draw, mostly.  That's only twice what my office idles at, and that's an off grid shed.  I go through rather a good bit more energy in my office alone on a typical day than your house consumes, though admittedly most of that draw is opportunistic compute most of the year.  I have a bunch of older computers that run BOINC tasks if I have surplus.

Plug in a Starlink dish and you'll damned near double your energy use.  Dishy, much as I do like the speed, pulls 2kWh/day.

What other external energy sources do you have coming in that don't count in that?  Pressurized water, gas for cooking/heating, ?

We consume something like 14-15MWh/yr, so a bit over 1000kWh/mo for a 2000 sq ft recent manufactured with 4 people in it, but that's also quite literally the only energy source coming in - that covers pumping water, heating, cooling, cooking, and the majority of our transportation miles in the process.  I also provide my own energy for work, though that's a separate system.  I'm working to bring it down, though solar is overproducing comically (I currently have a 6MWh credit after just short of a year of operation), so it doesn't really matter unless you're looking at how you could run it off-grid, as I am, since I remain a pessimist.  I should probably make use of the solar trailer to charge the car, that would trim down a good bit of energy use, but I don't have a good way to interconnect the office overproduction with the house (and if I do so, I lose 25 years of net metering, which is worth a good bit to me, even if I disagree with that subsidy still existing).

But, yes, most homes use a lot more energy than yours.  And I'll agree that reducing energy use significantly helps, as does moving it around into good renewable production days, which is an argument I've made before - being flexible on when you demand as much energy as your connection can provide helps a lot.

[former player]

I recently worked out that my monthly usage between April and September this year was 107kwh.  That's for one person in a 3 bed SFH, no heating or air con required because I'm in a (currently) liveable climate.   If the average american household uses 10 times that much energy then that's the problem, rather than how that energy is generated.  Even half that usage rather than my tenth would solve the problem.

What's your water heating? Either you have an insanely efficient water heater (or don't use any?), or it's gas.  You're averaging about 150W through those months, which... <.<  Is less than our overnight idle draw, mostly.  That's only twice what my office idles at, and that's an off grid shed.  I go through rather a good bit more energy in my office alone on a typical day than your house consumes, though admittedly most of that draw is opportunistic compute most of the year.  I have a bunch of older computers that run BOINC tasks if I have surplus.

Water heating is electric, but I've worked hard to reduce how much hot water I use. I have an insulated tank that supplies the house system which I rarely use, I only need it if I have a bath, in which case it is heated overnight on cheap electricity.  I have efficient point of use electric water heaters for the showers, heat the water I need for hot drinks and washing up (no automatic dishwasher) in a kettle and make the small sacrifice of washing my hands in cold water.  A big saving on hot water has been changing to cold wash for clothes which is better for the clothes in any case -

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/science-says-washing-your-clothes-in-colder-shorter-cycles-is-best-a-cleaning-expert-weighs-in?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

Plug in a Starlink dish and you'll damned near double your energy use.  Dishy, much as I do like the speed, pulls 2kWh/day.

I have very little that is a continuous draw.  There are a small undercounter fridge and freezer, energy efficient at the time of purchase, a landline phone/answerphone and modem, and wired-in CO2 and carbon monoxide detectors.  Everything else is only turned on as needed.

What other external energy sources do you have coming in that don't count in that?  Pressurized water, gas for cooking/heating, ?

The house is all electric except for two wood stoves for space heating.  For electricity I have a green energy supplier using all-renewables-renewables in general contribute about 40% to the UK electriity grid.

Mostly I just use electric heating in the live-in kitchen where there is a big insulated concrete slab under the floor that keeps the kitchen (and consequently my bedroom above it) constantly comfortable (17 degrees C in the kitchen) at a reasonable cost. I also have electric underfloor heating on a timer in winter for my shower room, which feels very luxurious.  Other than that renovations mean I get good solar gain in my study and sitting room and I use the woodstoves for daytime/evening heat as necessary.   

We consume something like 14-15MWh/yr, so a bit over 1000kWh/mo for a 2000 sq ft recent manufactured with 4 people in it, but that's also quite literally the only energy source coming in - that covers pumping water, heating, cooling, cooking, and the majority of our transportation miles in the process.  I also provide my own energy for work, though that's a separate system.  I'm working to bring it down, though solar is overproducing comically (I currently have a 6MWh credit after just short of a year of operation), so it doesn't really matter unless you're looking at how you could run it off-grid, as I am, since I remain a pessimist.  I should probably make use of the solar trailer to charge the car, that would trim down a good bit of energy use, but I don't have a good way to interconnect the office overproduction with the house (and if I do so, I lose 25 years of net metering, which is worth a good bit to me, even if I disagree with that subsidy still existing).

I don't need to pump water (or rather, I've externalised that to the water company) or use cooling. I do use some electricity for heating in winter but cold season here is only 4 to 5 months and the woodstoves (mostly supplied from my garden and driftwood) help a lot.  I've also put a lot of work into adapting the house with external insulation and increased solar gain  Cooking I take care to maximise efficiency by eg having two or more things in the oven each time I use it.  My transport is still a petrol car although under the pandemic mileage is down to under 1,000 a year.

I remember you writing about putting your solar system in and your battles with bureaucracy over it, and it's obviously doing well for you, congratulations. Neither the financials nor the configuration of my roof and position of my house (small complicated roof, lots of skylights, on the side of a hill) mean solar on this house is viable at the moment.  I do have a rental that would be perfect for it though (long, straight, unshaded south-facing roof on a single storey building) and I'm about to change tenants so will write into the tenancy agreement that there may be some future disruption from a solar installation.  I'm also taking the opportunity of the tenancy change to upgrade the loft insulation, and in due course the oil boiler will need to be changed out to a heat pump - the financial incentives for that should be coming in the next few years and of course the technology on heat pumps is massively better now than even a few years ago.

[Just Joe]

So I guess the most practical plan, taking into human psychology, is 99% reliable power for the rich and 80-95% for the rest?  It’s true that power goes out a lot in some countries and people don’t miraculously fall over dead. But the average American would raid the Capitol if that’s what environmentalists proposed. This time with real guns!

I assume that is exactly what is happening with powerwall batteries and permanent home generators. They are expensive to purchase and in the case of the generator - expensive to run. And just like lawn equipment - very dirty to run. Mine is nothing but a lawn mower motor spinning at 3600 rpm. Of course it is burning propane vs gasoline so that's a little better.

[Just Joe]

I think we all agree that technology doesn't exist today to do grid-storage at scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Mountain_Pumped-Storage_Plant

[BuildingFrugalHabits]

I recently worked out that my monthly usage between April and September this year was 107kwh.  That's for one person in a 3 bed SFH, no heating or air con required because I'm in a (currently) liveable climate.   If the average american household uses 10 times that much energy then that's the problem, rather than how that energy is generated.  Even half that usage rather than my tenth would solve the problem.

[/quote]

This is amazeballs!  Despite my best efforts, my household still consumes around 500 kwh per month.  My radon fan alone is 1/3 of your total monthly usage because it needs to run 24/7.  I think usage is higher in the last 1-2 years because of having multiple work from home setups with multi monitors etc, having to run heat / A/C more during the day due to WFH, a second fridge purchased for extra food storage, and a plug-in car.  Not sure how much I can reduce usage since most low hanging fruit has been picked.

[Just Joe]

One thing to keep in mind with gas in the US is even though the per gallon cost is lower here, distances driven in the US are higher compared to Europe so the cost for a single driving trip is actually higher in the US than in most of Europe.

Maybe I'm missing the gist of your statement. While the potential distances in the USA are further that in Europe, I'm still only driving 10 miles to work and 2 more on grocery trip days. And I repeat the work commute five days a week unless I pedal, but then my spouse is still driving to work b/c we carpool.

Despite longer potential distances, Americans can still work to shape their daily life so they drive less or not at all. It can be an effort that takes several years to establish but the pay off can be huge. As much as I like my car, a good day is one where I don't drive my car anywhere.

[former player]

I recently worked out that my monthly usage between April and September this year was 107kwh.  That's for one person in a 3 bed SFH, no heating or air con required because I'm in a (currently) liveable climate.   If the average american household uses 10 times that much energy then that's the problem, rather than how that energy is generated.  Even half that usage rather than my tenth would solve the problem.

This is amazeballs!  Despite my best efforts, my household still consumes around 500 kwh per month.  My radon fan alone is 1/3 of your total monthly usage because it needs to run 24/7.  I think usage is higher in the last 1-2 years because of having multiple work from home setups with multi monitors etc, having to run heat / A/C more during the day due to WFH, a second fridge purchased for extra food storage, and a plug-in car.  Not sure how much I can reduce usage since most low hanging fruit has been picked.
[/quote]
I don't think you need to be too hard on yourself: half the US average is not bad at all and if you divide your usage by the number of people in your household you may not be far off my figure.

I bought my house 18 years ago with it sustainable location in mind and have put a lot of thought and work into it since to make it as easy and sustainable to live in as is reasonably possible with a 90 year old house.  It's surprising how much difference a sustained interest in small gains can make.

[TrMama]

One thing to keep in mind with gas in the US is even though the per gallon cost is lower here, distances driven in the US are higher compared to Europe so the cost for a single driving trip is actually higher in the US than in most of Europe.

Maybe I'm missing the gist of your statement. While the potential distances in the USA are further that in Europe, I'm still only driving 10 miles to work and 2 more on grocery trip days. And I repeat the work commute five days a week unless I pedal, but then my spouse is still driving to work b/c we carpool.

Despite longer potential distances, Americans can still work to shape their daily life so they drive less or not at all. It can be an effort that takes several years to establish but the pay off can be huge. As much as I like my car, a good day is one where I don't drive my car anywhere.

Exactly. Americans aren't stupid. If the cost of a thing goes up, many of them will figure out how to reduce their personal cost of that thing. This chart is pretty interesting, https://internationalcomparisons.org/environmental/transportation/

Unsurprisingly, countries with cheaper gas seem to correlate pretty closely with most miles driven per capita. I'd argue that Canada and Australia also need to increase the price of gas.

[seattlecyclone]

I just looked up our electric usage and we've averaged a bit under 750 kWh/month for the past year, household of five. The year before that we were closer to 650. Every appliance in the house except the furnace is electric. I don't feel as though we're doing anything too unusual to conserve. We use an electric dryer for basically all of our laundry, and with little kids we make a lot of laundry. I take long, hot showers from time to time. I have a couple of computers that are powered on at all times. Certain members of our household aren't great about turning lights off when not in use. Most of the food we eat at home is cooked on our electric range. We host au pairs from warmer climates and we give them an electric space heater to use in their room in the winter to keep them happy.

The main difference I might see between ourselves and the "typical" American household is that we only have one air conditioned room in the house, and the air conditioning is only in effect for a couple weeks per year. I know AC is a power hog, but if this alone is the difference between ourselves and the average household, despite the average household being half the size of ours, that's a big deal.

[GuitarStv]

Unsurprisingly, countries with cheaper gas seem to correlate pretty closely with most miles driven per capita. I'd argue that Canada and Australia also need to increase the price of gas.

We definitely need higher gas prices.  Here in Ontario the Conservatives made it legally mandatory for all gas stations to display stickers on all pumps attacking a very tiny federal gas price increase (this was struck down in courts as unconstitutional eventually, but still).  It's really hard to get people to pay for the pollution they make . . . politically it's an easy thing to attack.

[tygertygertyger]

Hmmm. We averaged about 330 kWh / month over the last year. We live in a 2 bedroom apartment, and our water heater uses natural gas instead of electricity. But it's stunning to see that summer usage (with our single window a/c unit) uses 2-3 times the kWh that we use in winter.

We're about to move into a SFH, so I'll be very interested to see how that compares to apartment living.

[maizefolk]

I just looked up our electric usage and we've averaged a bit under 750 kWh/month for the past year, household of five. The year before that we were closer to 650. Every appliance in the house except the furnace is electric. I don't feel as though we're doing anything too unusual to conserve. We use an electric dryer for basically all of our laundry, and with little kids we make a lot of laundry. I take long, hot showers from time to time. I have a couple of computers that are powered on at all times. Certain members of our household aren't great about turning lights off when not in use. Most of the food we eat at home is cooked on our electric range. We host au pairs from warmer climates and we give them an electric space heater to use in their room in the winter to keep them happy.

The main difference I might see between ourselves and the "typical" American household is that we only have one air conditioned room in the house, and the air conditioning is only in effect for a couple weeks per year. I know AC is a power hog, but if this alone is the difference between ourselves and the average household, despite the average household being half the size of ours, that's a big deal.

I have a small and well insulated house with a nearly new high efficiency air condition in a place where the climate goes to greater extremes in both the winter and summer. In ideal months in the spring or fall I can hit 250 kwh/month. In the middle of summer when the highs are in the upper 30s (celsius) and I try to keep the house around 27-28 C, it's in the 400-500 kwh/month range.

TL;DR I'm guessing air conditioning is indeed a big driver of the delta between your monthly usage and the overall american average.

[gaja]

Things I am about to do: I'm trying to find allies to get the church, school and town to reduce their use of two stroke engines in landscaping.  Acres of lawn are unnecessary, wasteful, and expensive to keep up. Smarter landscaping may also reduce flooding.

Distilling the above results, the four-stroke Ryobi leaf blower kicked out 6.8 times more NOx, 13.5 times more CO and more than 36 times more NMHC than the Raptor.

The two-stroke leaf blower was worse still, generating 23 times the CO and nearly 300 times more NMHC than the crew cab pickup. Let's put that in perspective. To equal the hydrocarbon emissions of about a half-hour of yard work with this two-stroke leaf blower, you'd have to drive a Raptor for 3,887 miles, or the distance from Northern Texas to Anchorage, Alaska.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-car-vs-truck-vs-leaf-blower.html

In the process of researching retrofit kits for lawnmowers, I found this very cool forum "Welcome to EcoModder.com, an automotive community where performance is judged by efficiency and economy rather than power and speed.": https://ecomodder.com/

https://youtu.be/z5kP4g57Ycw

And parts are still available. Two sources specialize in parts for these tractors but honestly much of the tractor's controls are commodity parts that can be sourced anywhere.

I own two of these tractors. Some owners are upgrading the Apollo rocket era controls to modern EV controls. Some are upgrading to used lithium batteries (longer battery life, longer run times).

I run one of my tractors all stock and mow a large yard. For the other one I'm considering upgrading the controls and the batteries at some point as an interesting engineering exercise. At some point I want to add solar to charge them with. In fact all these exercises are well documented already on the web.

PM me for more information.

OMG! THIS is what I have been looking for the last months! It is the most freaking perfect machine for our tiny homestead! How does it handle steep hills? The low center of gravity makes it look like it wouldn't roll over too soon?

Now only to find a way to find a decent one for sale (or couple for spare parts) and import it/them to Norway...

[PDXTabs]

Just for fun I looked up my records. Electric:

Code: [Select]

Oct. 2021   434 kWh
Sep. 2021   714 kWh
Aug. 2021   622 kWh
July 2021   521 kWh
June 2021   331 kWh
May 2021    407 kWh
April 2021  417 kWh
March 2021  476 kWh
Feb. 2021   438 kWh
Jan. 2021   512 kWh
Dec. 2020   515 kWh
Nov. 2020   298 kWh
Average:    473.75 kWh

Natural Gas in therms:

Code: [Select]

October 2021    20.4
September 2021   8.8
August 2021      9.9
July 2021        8.9
June 2021       16.4
May 2021        20.8
April 2021      36.6
March 2021      49.2
February 2021   64.7
January 2021    46.5
December 2021   62.3
November 2021   36.8
Average:        31.76

~1700ft² home that I work from home in. Two stories, one shared wall with neighbor. Natural gas heat, hot water, and range. In Portland so that does include one wicked ice storm and some fiery hot summer with the AC cranked to keep thinking on my job.

[Just Joe]

Exactly. Americans aren't stupid.

Well, some of them are.... ;)

The past decade or so has been an education in people's beliefs and motivations!

[Just Joe]

OMG! THIS is what I have been looking for the last months! It is the most freaking perfect machine for our tiny homestead! How does it handle steep hills? The low center of gravity makes it look like it wouldn't roll over too soon?

Now only to find a way to find a decent one for sale (or couple for spare parts) and import it/them to Norway...

http://ge-electrak.com/

https://myelec-traks.com/dealers.html

The don't flip over easily and both the front and rear wheels can be reversed to make the tractor wider.

There are tons of these tractors for sale. You just need to watch. EBay has them at a premium of course. Join the lists and occasionally someone will downsize their home and not need a lawn tractor anymore.

Lots of expertise available on the web to help you keep it running. I could go into more detail but I don't want to bore the forum.

https://www.myelec-traks.com/Publications.html

People ship these tractors all over the country strapped to pallets. Take the wheels off, strap the tractor to the pallet, stack the tires beside it. Take off the mower deck and strap it standing on edge beside the tractor using a blanket to protect the paint between the tractor and mower deck. It is best to ship it without batteries. They use golf cart batteries or newer battery chemistries if you can do the engineering to fit them.

[Abe]

Energy usage in Houston (3500 sqft house):

Electricity from Grid:
Oct 2020 - 850 kWh
Nov 2020- Apr 2021 (no AC): 400-450 kWh per month
May 2021 (AC on!): 721 kWh
Jun 2021 (85-95 high, 75-80 low): 1217 kWh <- peak use
Jul 2021 (solar panels activated Jul 7): 864 kWh <- 30% less
Aug 2021 (first full month with panels): 767 kWh <- 40% less than June
Sep 2021 (high ~90): 623 kWh <- 50% less than June
Oct 2021 (projected): 420 kWh <- 50% less than last year
Average: 581 kWh

I've looked at converting our heating to natural gas, and wondered if anyone with a heat pump could corroborate (roughly) the kWh usage in the winter for your house.

Natural Gas (est kWh to replace with heat pump/electric dryer/electric stove)
Apr-Sep (no heating): 8-17 therms
Oct: 21 (200 kWh)
Nov: 45 (440 kWh)
Dec: 93 (900 kWh)
Jan: 98 (960 kWh)
Feb: 120 (Great Freeze! 1100kWh)
Mar: 26 (250 kWh)
Average: 38 (371 kWh)

For heating in the winter it would be about ~600 kWh a month from Oct-Mar.

581 electricity +371 equivalent for gas = 952 kWh (not too far off from average!)

Last note: average output from solar system is 1100 kWh/month May-Oct,  anticipate 600 kWh Nov-March. Total ~11Mwh per year, which is about we would use for an all-electric house.

[Jon Bon]

Interesting, concept. In terms of the nuts and bolts its basically just a well insulated home with solar panels right?

What does a solar array cost that can generate 1000 kilowatt hours a month? Ok some quick googling here, making some big assumptions. Feel free to disagree or quote better sources.

Average house is ~1000 kw a month
That requires a 25kw solar system.
That costs ~25k just for the panels themselves. https://sunwatts.com/25-kw-solar-kits/
Maybe about 5-10k for the install?
Another 5-10k in upgraded insulation, windows and doors?

So you are looking at nearly 40k MORE for a net zero house? Maybe I am off on how the achieve the result but the low hanging fruit for energy efficient has mostly been put into the code years ago. I mean if you think hat is a good use of your dollars I absolutely think you should do that. I myself really want to go solar, probably will in the not too distant future than the EV would be next.

I just don't understand how we can add 40k to the cost of a house and scream about the affordability crisis. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that we should do nothing, I am just saying there are tradeoffs. I mean we could build a ton of solar/wind plants for 40k a house right? Basically if we are thinking in the macro/aggregate sense here having extremely dispersed solar generation is an inefficient way to do things?

Final disclaimer, I know nothing about how they build houses in CA, but I gotta image there are more expensive then hose they build them in most of the rest of the country due to fires/earthquakes etc.

$40K more for a netzero house but what have property prices done this year? They've risen far more than $40K around here for nice homes.

If $40K is what it took to have a comfortable home in future uncertain times when utilities were unreliable or expensive, I think people who could afford it would consider it.

I know people who put in home generators this year because of the unusual week long ice storm we had last winter. This isn't Texas but some people did endure a lack of electricity that lasted the week. They are spending $7500+ to get gas lines laid, propane tanks installed, etc.

For an EV owner, the payback on solar panels will be even faster.

Right, houses have gotten EXPENSIVE. So making it net zero is going to be +/-40k more expensive than the fed inflated prices we are currently seeing.

Re: Payback. I am pretty skeptical of most of the projections I have seen on the payback of the panels. They are making lots of assumptions and projecting far into the future. But what I know now is that  having solar installed professionally it is pretty expensive. Even if I DIY it I am looking at a LONG time for payback. Say I can get a 5 KW system for $10 grand if I install it myself? Produces $700 of electricity a year. Takes ~ 17 years to pay it back. That is a LONG time and that assumes nothing ever breaks or needs maintenance. Unless I am very wrong on my math I just don't see how it makes sense for my house in this current state.

Math Assumptions
10k up front cost
discounting at 5%
3% growth in price of electricity
zero degradation in panels
zero maintenance cost
takes 17 years.

Seriously I have to be wrong here right? Or do panels just suck in the Midwest?

[gaja]

Why is it that in in the MMM world we can justify travelling, buying nice clothes, enjoying good coffee, wine, or whiskey, or a nice bike, but when it comes to renewable energy, energy efficiency, or other environmental friendly choices, it has to make economic sense?

We have a 5kW solar array on our garage, on a property we knew we were going to sell soon. Will we ever make the money back? No. Does it make me happy on a daily basis? Yes.  And that is good enough for me.

[Syonyk]

Re: Payback. I am pretty skeptical of most of the projections I have seen on the payback of the panels. They are making lots of assumptions and projecting far into the future.

Correct.  Solar sales people can, for the most part, be lumped in with the bottom end of used car salesmen.  The only reason you don't get "good cop/bad cop" out of them is that they don't normally come in pairs.

A typical solar quote:
- Will assume your energy costs increase annually at the maximum their software supports, typically 3% or 5% depending on the package.  Questions about what the actual power company has done will get met with blank stares, and you might get something about a national average or such.  Out here, power costs are increasing at a far lower rate than 5%, so... those assumptions are void.
- They may add increased power consumption in for fun, just to inflate your "expected" power costs.  It's worth reverse engineering their numbers (this requires knowing what exactly you've given them, so make sure you know the annual power cost you've provided to them).  It's interesting.
- Even when net metering is absolutely up for question in an area, you'll typically get a quote that assumes kWh for kWh net metering through the span of the estimate timeframe.  Sometimes this might be correct, though a grandfathered net metering is far from a given in most areas.  I did luck into this, so I'm good for 25 years, but... then went and built a system that isn't really optimum for that sort of thing either.  Oh well, I'm good for whatever comes down the road, or going off-grid if I have to.
- That you can take the full tax credit in their first year.  Rarely will they actually ask what your last year's federal taxes are.
- They won't bother mentioning that the "1.99% APR" rate on the loan involves paying a huge amount up front (typically a few grand on a normal install) to "buy" the low interest rate.  Cash prices are generally around $0.50/W to $1/W cheaper.
- If they're commissioned, in many cases, the salespeople get to dial their own commission into the quote, so if it feels like the price is exactly what they can convince you will save you money, and you can just barely afford, welllll.... yup.

I went through a huge hassle to do it myself, and I'm entirely happy with the process and the amount of work I did.

Even if I DIY it I am looking at a LONG time for payback. Say I can get a 5 KW system for $10 grand if I install it myself?

That's a bit high, even with some nasty fixed costs.

You should be able to do it for about $1.50/W for DIY, unless you have something exotic going on.  A 5kW system is only 21A backfeed, which will fit comfortably in a 200A panel under the 120% rule - you could even do it on a 150A panel.  So, $7500 install cost, minus the 26% tax credit, leaves a net system cost of around $5550 for 5kW.

Produces $700 of electricity a year. Takes ~ 17 years to pay it back.

Or 8 years on my math.

That is a LONG time and that assumes nothing ever breaks or needs maintenance.

The good news is that if you've done the work yourself, you can do the repair work yourself, and it's not that hard to do.

I had some arc fault warnings on one of my inverters this summer, went through and found a loose connection (it'd been tight last winter, but thermally cycled to a bit looser than it ought be), so I just depowered that array, reseated the connections, tightened them down, and went on my way.  Annoyingly, the fault only shows up in the installer view - you see the power dropout, but it won't show in the user alerts, only the installer alerts.  Which, of course, I have access to. ;)

Seriously I have to be wrong here right? Or do panels just suck in the Midwest?

Most people with $4/W solar installs will never see savings unless they're in California or some other place that charges $0.25/kWh.  If your power is cheaper, it's harder to make the numbers meet, but doing it yourself make an awful lot more sense of things.

Why is it that in in the MMM world we can justify travelling, buying nice clothes, enjoying good coffee, wine, or whiskey, or a nice bike, but when it comes to renewable energy, energy efficiency, or other environmental friendly choices, it has to make economic sense?

It seems to just be a particular attitude around residential solar.  Any time a power company does anything faintly related to net metering, you can reliably expect a chorus of "BUT MAH ROI!" whining, insisting that they power company should pay them residential retail rates for every kWh they push, no matter when they push or pull power.  It's quite absurd, it probably shouldn't still exist in that form, but... honestly, I think it's a lot of people getting screwed who know it and hope they can recover at least some of the value at the expense of other ratepayers.

Do it yourself at $1.50/W or less, and you care a lot less because the system will be financially advantageous under a wide range of rate schedules.

[scottish]

Synonyk, any tips on how you learned to do the install?

[Syonyk]

Synonyk, any tips on how you learned to do the install?

You can go snoof around my blog, I did a writeup of most of the process there: https://www.sevarg.net/tag/solar2020/

Read, learn, and figure it out as you go.  I've got a computer engineering background, and a long standing lack of fear of getting my hands dirty in something new.  I learned plenty along the way, but read the NEC, find tutorials if you have questions, and it's really not that hard.  The wiring is quite simple, the structural stuff for a roof mount isn't too hard (Iron Ridge makes good stuff with good install guides), and for me, the biggest challenge was figuring out the plans review (I didn't build what I initially wanted with batteries because of that part, and that's just the plans review guy being an ass about batteries out here - the professionals work around him by putting their batteries on a big pallet and plugging it into the house so it's "portable" for off-grid systems) and then building the big A-frames everything is connected to.

[bill1827]

Why is it that in in the MMM world we can justify travelling, buying nice clothes, enjoying good coffee, wine, or whiskey, or a nice bike, but when it comes to renewable energy, energy efficiency, or other environmental friendly choices, it has to make economic sense?

We have a 5kW solar array on our garage, on a property we knew we were going to sell soon. Will we ever make the money back? No. Does it make me happy on a daily basis? Yes.  And that is good enough for me.

That seems a willfully perverse view of both MMM and the denizens of the forum. Although the forums seem to be dominated by extremely wealthy individuals who seem to indulge in whatever they fancy without closely examining the economics there seem to me to be a significant number who examine the economics of all their choices and aren't extremely wealthy.

PV is no different from any other purchase and economics should be taken into account just as much as the self-satisfaction you might get from the illusion of saving the environment.

Mr MMM has installed a PV system, but he did analyse the cost effectiveness of it before hand.

FWIW I have a 14kW PV system with about 20kWh of battery storage, which I started building 6 years ago. I did it because I've always been fascinated with the idea of generating power locally and having a degree of independence from the grid. However, there is no way the system is cost effective. The payback time is over 40 years and there is unlikely to be any environmental benefit when the materials and energy used to create the system are considered. IOW it was done for the same reasons that others use for buying fancy biles etc.