The costs of displacing fossil fuels

lotstodo

aka "The Jackal"
Below is an article covering a research paper that studies the actual costs of different primary and backup energy production combinations. It uncovers a quirk that many no-nuke and pro-wind groups have been passing around lately, and this is that wind with natural gas backup is cheaper than nuclear plus natural gas backup. This is true, but only because the wind system requires twice the backup capacity and use, so in effect, you are comparing the cost of natural gas to nuclear when you make this claim.

The elephant in the room is of course that all alternative production with the exception of geothermal requires backup, and geothermal is considered a limited region alternative. Nuclear requires backup because of load changes, as a nuclear plant must run at full capacity all the time to be practical, and is difficult to take offline and restart. Thus nuclear cannot be the only form of production. Wind and solar require backup for the both load and generation capacity, as they cannot be throttled efficiently either (particularly solar), their production capacity is often inverse to load, and their production capacity is not under man's control. As a general rule, they require twice the capacity of nuclear. Fossil fuel plants are designed to be throttled and even taken off grid as required, with a startup time that is reasonable for daily production.

Anyway, there is a link to the paper. The peer reviewed and published version, which is substantially the same as the unedited working paper which is free, is behind a pay firewall. There are links to both in the article.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/12/14/...il-fuels-some-evidence-from-texas/#more-23687
 
Back in the 80s in Michigan, I purchased a house in the country that had electric, solar and wood heating capabilities. The solar worked well on those few sunny days you have during the winter; but once the sun went down, cold air would blow out of the ducts. The electric heat was too expensive as it would result in massive electric bills. The wood heat was generated by a wood stove in the utility room and could heat the entire house. Burning wood was by far less expensive overall and more reliable in producing heat anytime day or night. I would load up the wood stove before going to bed and wake up in the morning with it still blowing hot air and the house temperature would be 72.

Fast forward to present time where my wife and I live up in the mountains of northeast GA. We had a wood stove inserted into our fireplace five years ago. We use it almost continuously during the cold winter months here. It produces enough heat to heat the entire house and has saved us a lot of money on our gas bill. We keep the thermostat for the house set at 72 so the furnace will run while we are not at home and when the fire goes out while we are sleeping. Last year, I spent $350 for a load of firewood that lasted through Winter and early Spring. This year, I am burning wood from a dead red oak I cut down last year. Irma took down to large red oaks on our property and I will be burning that next Winter. There will probably be enough firewood from those two trees to get me through at least two Winters.
 
I've never understood why more homes in the U.S. don't utilize an underfloor heating source similar to what I used while living in Korea back in the early 80's. I would stock the firebox with Ondol charcoal bricks before turning in for the night and it would provide a heat source for the water lines which ran under the floors of each room. With heat rising it kept the floors and rooms quite warm even during the harshest of Winter months even though there was very little, if any, insulation in the walls or ceiling of the home. The Ondol bricks were cheap and easily stored until needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondol
 
I've never understood why more homes in the U.S. don't utilize an underfloor heating source similar to what I used while living in Korea back in the early 80's. I would stock the firebox with Ondol charcoal bricks before turning in for the night and it would provide a heat source for the water lines which ran under the floors of each room. With heat rising it kept the floors and rooms quite warm even during the harshest of Winter months even though there was very little, if any, insulation in the walls or ceiling of the home. The Ondol bricks were cheap and easily stored until needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondol
Hydronic (using a circulated liquid as the medium for transferring heat) floor heating becomes more common in the US as you go northward. They typically use natural gas or fuel oil as the source of heat though. But floor heat doesn't work for cooling, so they would need a separate system for that. So that puts a question mark into the cost viability.

Radiant floor heat has caught on, even in the south somewhat in bathrooms and dressing areas, but they use an electric matt that is put down under tile floors. It's more for maintaining a cozy warm floor than for actual room heating.

As for using wood as a fuel; our government has been trying to curb that for some time. They've passed emission standards on many wood stoves and fireplace inserts, and congress has entertained legislation that would make fireplaces illegal. California has really cracked down on wood and coal burning! So keep watch because they will continue to try to stop us from burning wood.

The coolest wood burning system I've seen is an outside "boiler room" where the wood fire actually occurs, and heats a glycol solution which circulates into the house for heating and domestic hot water. Glycol is used instead of just water because it won't freeze at the temperatures our weather brings us. It also has better heat absorption qualities than straight water. The outdoor burner uses pretty sophisticated damper controls to regulate the burn rate of the fire, therefore providing a somewhat automatic means of controlling the heat output of the fire. They are costly to buy and install, but they work great!

A lot of people love the wood pellet stoves. They also control the delivery of the pellets and the air introduced to the fire to regulate the size of the fire. You don't always need a roaring fire; sometimes just a bit of heat is plenty.

But remember too that most Americans these days wouldn't think about going to the trouble of starting a fire or carrying wood, much less getting their hands dirty. All they are willing to do is adjust a thermostat.
 
...congress has entertained legislation that would make fireplaces illegal.....All they are willing to do is adjust a thermostat.
Good luck to them in that effort and that thermostat better be programmable too because most aren't going to put down their snack cake and walk over to change it.
 
With the exception of the far north, passive and active distributed solar heating can be quite efficient in the winter months. These are the systems where you have the mechanism on your property to directly heat water and/or the air, not for the production of electricity. The problem comes in the summer months, where passive systems must be defeated, and active systems are largely idle but still exposed to damage and aging. Also, like large central plants, they must have a back-up for cloudy days and for cold nights. They can help to lower power bills though if you are willing to maintain them and wait ten to fifteen years for the payoff.

Wood burning systems are fine, but they greatly add to air pollution even if you disregard carbon. Even the EPA approved systems wouldn't be prudent for widespread use. I do love a fire on a cold night though.
 
Back
Top