Natural gas, a bridge to nowhere?

[Kenz]

Wind and solar energy are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels.
The price for solar and wind have dropped like a rock and continue to fall.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel. Better than coal but both are bad for the planet.

 

[jerry33]

All new buildings and retrofits need to consider many energy efficiency options.
Saving energy saves money as well as the planet. It also makes for a more comfortable building.
Air sealing, super insulation, triple pane windows, energy efficient doors, energy efficient appliances, high efficiency heating and Air Conditioning, LED light bulbs, set back thermostats, solar panels, battery storage and a 220 outlet in the garage ready for a electric vehicle charger should all be considered. It may cost a little more up front but the long term savings pay for themselves. Too many people look for the cheapest up front cost. That is a mistake. The long term savings month after month for years is where the savings add up.
Running your electric car off the suns rays will make you smile.

Agreed, sort of. The problem is that if you do all the high efficiency stuff, then home solar becomes expensive. Anecdote: Our house (1700 sq ft) has had a lot of the items done, plus some extra. Other than heating, the only gas appliance is the tankless hot water heater which uses very little gas (purchased almost twenty years ago--has another five to ten years of life left). A high electricity bill using the 100% renewable plan is $170/mo (one, possibly two, months out of twelve), but for over half the year it's less than $100, including charging two BEVs. The lowest cost solar is $232 per month every month, for only 80% of the usage.

 

[EinSV]

Wind and solar energy are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels.
The price for solar and wind have dropped like a rock and continue to fall.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel. Better than coal but both are bad for the planet.

Even before factoring in environmental damage and health costs, gas and coal are money losers compared to renewables. Once health and environmental costs are factored in, there is clearly no reason to build more coal or gas plants.

And the economics of renewables are improving so fast it should accelerate the pace of taking existing coal and gas plants off line. The Rocky Mountain Institute report I posted found that even if the proposed gas plants in the pipeline are built, by 2035 it would cost more just to run them than to build new renewables so it would make sense to decommission them long before the end of their expected lifespan. Older, less efficient plants will become even more uneconomic, sooner.

 

[mspohr]

Agreed, sort of. The problem is that if you do all the high efficiency stuff, then home solar becomes expensive. Anecdote: Our house (1700 sq ft) has had a lot of the items done, plus some extra. Other than heating, the only gas appliance is the tankless hot water heater which uses very little gas (purchased almost twenty years ago--has another five to ten years of life left). A high electricity bill using the 100% renewable plan is $170/mo (one, possibly two, months out of twelve), but for over half the year it's less than $100, including charging two BEVs. The lowest cost solar is $232 per month every month, for only 80% of the usage.

I don't understand your math here.
What are you buying in solar for $232 per month?
Wouldn't Tesla's $50 month be better?

 

[Kenz]

Wind and solar energy are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels.
Investing more money into fossil fuels production will be a money loosing proposition as wind and solar take over.
Look how fast coal companies lost value and went bankrupt yet some are still looking to add to production.
As the Climate Crisis continues to grow people will divest from fossil fuels.
Financial institutions and insurance companies are now starting to review the risks and are backing away.
Stock holders are asking all companies to assess their Climate risks.

 

[jerry33]

I don't understand your math here.
What are you buying in solar for $232 per month?
Wouldn't Tesla's $50 month be better?

I'm not purchasing anything for $232 a month. That was the lowest quote I received. Actually, I don't think it would go further than a quote because solar companies don't want to put solar on my house.

 

[brucet999]

I'm not purchasing anything for $232 a month. That was the lowest quote I received. Actually, I don't think it would go further than a quote because solar companies don't want to put solar on my house.

So this was a quote for a system that you would not own?

If you have investments sufficient to pay for a purchased system rather than borrowing, you should consider doing it. I put a 5kW system on my roof last fall (using expensive SunPower all black panels for best esthetics and certified eco-friendly manufacturing processes), and after federal tax credit, the annual electricity savings, as a percentage of the cost of the system, runs about 8%. That means the funds taken out of my investment portfolio, that was returning about 6% before taxes, is now returning 8% tax free (you don't pay taxes on reduction of expenditures for electricity); equivalent to about an 11% return on some taxable investment.

That makes my system a pretty good investment that will continue to pay more and more as future electricity rates increase.

 

[jerry33]

So this was a quote for a system that you would not own?

No. I would have owned the system, but since each month would have been $60 to $110 more than the grid's 100% renewable plan (not counting the 20% that would still have to be paid to the grid), it was a non-starter. Tax credits would not even remotely cover that kind of increase.

 

[miimura]

So this was a quote for a system that you would not own?

If you have investments sufficient to pay for a purchased system rather than borrowing, you should consider doing it. I put a 5kW system on my roof last fall (using expensive SunPower all black panels for best esthetics and certified eco-friendly manufacturing processes), and after federal tax credit, the annual electricity savings, as a percentage of the cost of the system, runs about 8%. That means the funds taken out of my investment portfolio, that was returning about 6% before taxes, is now returning 8% tax free (you don't pay taxes on reduction of expenditures for electricity); equivalent to about an 11% return on some taxable investment.

That makes my system a pretty good investment that will continue to pay more and more as future electricity rates increase.

Yes, in California solar makes sense due to our insane electricity prices. Texas is a different story. That's why the math doesn't work for him.

 

[Big Earl]

Yes, in California solar makes sense due to our insane electricity prices. Texas is a different story. That's why the math doesn't work for him.

Math on Tesla’s solar lease doesn’t work for me in VA, either. 13.8 to 18.5 cents per kWh for the solar vs 9.5 - 11.5 cents per kWh on my time of use plan with 100% REC offset. I still want solar but the lease doesn’t make sense for me.

I’m also itching to ditch our gas furnace and central A/C and replace them with high efficiency mini splits.

 

[SageBrush]

No. I would have owned the system, but since each month would have been $60 to $110 more than the grid's 100% renewable plan (not counting the 20% that would still have to be paid to the grid), it was a non-starter. Tax credits would not even remotely cover that kind of increase.

$232 a month for how many months ?

 

[jerry33]

$232 a month for how many months ?

Don't recall, it was a few months ago. Probably 240.

 

[SageBrush]

Don't recall, it was a few months ago. Probably 240.

That would be $55k over the term of the loan. WHAT system did you ask for a quote ?!

 

[jerry33]

That would be $55k over the term of the loan. WHAT system did you ask for a quote ?!

Sunpower.

 

[SageBrush]

Sunpower.

System size ?

 

[jerry33]

System size ?

I don't recall the number of panels. It was supposed to cover 80% of annual usage. Grid price is 7.2 cent/kWh all inclusive.

 

[SageBrush]

I don't recall the number of panels. It was supposed to cover 80% of annual usage. Grid price is 7.2 cent/kWh all inclusive.
View attachment 453333

I estimate 8.5 kW array ... for $55k financed. Surely you know that is not a competitive bid ?

 

[jerry33]

I estimate 8.5 kW array ... for $55k financed. Surely you know that is not a competitive bid ?

I have had others and they have been more, most just refuse to quote because they don't like the metal roof. The metal roof I have sits up about 30 mm from the decking so that there is air circulation and the hot sun never hits the decking. Saves a bundle on A/C. The 225 mph wind rating and hail resistance doesn't hurt either. I can imagine that if there was ever that strong of a wind, the entire roof would go sailing off in one piece.

 

[SageBrush]

I have had others and they have been more, most just refuse to quote because they don't like the metal roof. The metal roof I have sits up about 30 mm from the decking so that there is air circulation and the hot sun never hits the decking. Saves a bundle on A/C. The 225 mph wind rating and hail resistance doesn't hurt either. I can imagine that if there was ever that strong of a wind, the entire roof would go sailing off in one piece.

Oh ... I see. You are a (to put it mildly) non-standard installation.

I have a similar problem --- gravel on polyurethane flat roof. Some roofs are just not meant to hold PV in its current state of installation tech. That is not the cost of PV. I keep hoping for a community solar garden to make it pass the local politics but in the meantime I plan to put PV on a gazebo.

 

[mspohr]

Cheap renewables could make 90% of proposed gas power plants — and many pipelines — obsolete by 2035 - NationofChange

A pair of reports released this week by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), a nonprofit that supports the transition away from fossil fuels, outlines some of these ongoing changes.

“The analysis presents compelling evidence that 2019 represents a tipping point,” RMI concluded, “with the economics now favoring clean energy over nearly all new U.S. gas-fired generation.”

For the past decade, natural gas industry groups have argued, often successfully, that natural gas, which releases roughly half as much climate-changing carbon dioxide pollution as coal when burned for power, should serve as a “bridge” from coal power to a distant future of renewable energy.

That’s despite the fact that in 2011, scientists at Cornell University took a closer look at the gas industry’s pollution, and particularly its pollution of another greenhouse gas, methane. Burning natural gas instead of coal for power, they found, could be worse for the climate than coal because of the industry’s severe issues with methane pollution throughout the supply chain. Their early warnings have since been bolstered by studies from other scientists.

(CEP is "Clean Energy Portfolio")

Pipelines to nowhere
It’s a fight that’s coming not only to hearings over new power plants, but also to the battle over the rush to build new natural gas pipelines, including some of the country’s most controversial pipeline projects.

“Our story for gas plants is, if you build it, they won’t run — they won’t run at their expected capacity factors,” RMI’s Dyson told Bloomberg, referring to the percentage of time that a power plant generates electricity. “And that filters down to pipelines, too.”