Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldpie | Hacker News Reader

> Natural gas heating is much cheaper than electric.

Does this include the cost of dealing with the effects of emitting CO2 into the atmosphere?

According to [1], burning natural gas generates 0.0053 tons per therm. According to [2], the cost to reclaim CO2 from natural gas sources is approximately $90 per ton on the high end. Some quick math done on an old gas bill of mine suggests that reclamation would increase my bill by 40% (assuming that no reclamation is presently priced in).

So... If the article is correct, and electric energy costs 77% more than natural gas, then yes. Natural gas is still cheaper when factoring in emissions.

1 - https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...

2 - https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2019.006...

> So... If the article is correct, and electric energy costs 77% more than natural gas,

If you use resistive heating, heat pump would be 40-50% or so cheaper. Of course with no subsidies the initial cost might be rather high.

I'll ask my landlord to install one right away.

Probably have to be an earth-exchange system to deal with temperatures lower than 40°F, given that heating my house in winter is the use case.

My Mitsubishi Hyperheat units have a COP above 1 down to -15F and still work normally at 5F (northern New Mexico, 6000', overnight). You're getting bad information.

Mitsubishis can work down to -13F/-25C and have a COP of 2.08:

* https://mylinkdrive.com/viewPdf?srcUrl=http://enter.mehvac.c...

If you live in US IECC Climate Zone 4 or above look for a cold climate air-source heat pump (ccASHP):

* https://neep.org/heating-electrification/ccashp-specificatio...

* https://ashp.neep.org/#!/

You can also get things installed in a dual fuel arrangement where you still have a gas furnace that kicks in if it does ever get 'too cold'.

My Lennox system is break even COP at -10 iirc. By then it's also running the heat strip, but we only hit those temps once or twice a year.

> According to [2], the cost to reclaim CO2 from natural gas sources is approximately $90 per ton on the high end

I may be reading that wrong, but I'm pretty sure that refers to the CCS cost when you capture at use (e.g. in a power plant). You can't really use CCS when you're heating a house, so the right price to compare to would be direct air capture which is an order of magnitude more expensive IIUC.

Let's see if we can fix that.

Found this article: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-captured-co2-worth that suggests it's about twice as expensive. Though it seems that's the credit that the government pays, not the cost.

https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture-2022/executiv... suggests $125-$335 per ton, so not quite an order of magnitude but still a big difference for CCS.

Your [2] reference is about capture & storage for nat-gas power plants. Natural gas for heating is done at the endpoint. That's going to cost a lot more to capture.

But also, how green is your electricity? The "electrify everything b/c it's greener" approach seems currently largely aspirational. My understanding is that most states still get most of their electricity from fossil fuels.

https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-g...

My electricity is 99% green (wind + solar).

So is mine, supposedly, but overall we have a long way to go in switching the grid to renewables. The states that have the lowest dependence on fossil fuels for generation all have a significant amount of hydro power, which is probably not going to expand, and which can have its own environmental issues.

Some locations have a great mix of wind + sun, so minimal backup storage may be required. What is the plan/cost for offsetting solar cell production and recycling?

Solar electricity, including panel production and disposal, is so much less emissive than even the cleanest gas generator (let alone coal or such), that I honestly find that a worry for later. Let's get the world on low emissions before nitpicking about how to get it fully circular (likely, that's near-impossible and we'll eventually need to mine other bodies in the solar/star system, but that, too, I find to be a worry for later). It comes across as though you're asking a vegetarian if they've ever killed a mosquito. Perfect is the enemy of good

If it's a serious question, then this is where carbon capture will have to come in, if our emissions aren't already low enough to be workable for the earth's natural carbon cycles

You can get a lot closer to 100% green if you have rooftop solar no matter where you are. So moving to using more electricity just recoups your investment faster assuming you've overspecced even just a little.

The global economy runs on energy and emitting co2. Last I checked majority of electricity is mainly produced from burning fossil fuels.

From the perspective of an individual consumer it doesn't matter much. e.g. if you 100% rational (which is not necessarily the best approach) there is no additional cost for you related to you choosing to use gas regardless of what happens with the climate.

That's not being rational, that is being individualistic and short-sighted in name of greed/saving cash. Rationally you want to keep the Earth viable for human populations, for at least the sake of the future of your family if you are that individualistic.

Not on the individual level, free-riding is perfectly rational if you goal is to maximize your personal wellbeing, wealth etc.

Perhaps the issue then is the hyperindividualisation after the atomisation of society.

To my mind it's not perfectly rational to maximise my personal wellbeing and wealth in detriment of others, maybe I have a collectivist sense higher than others, maybe we should instill that across societies.

The 20th century went too far with the me-first approach, we can see it's not really working for societies.

You will pay for it anyway, in terms of increased taxes or insurance rates to pay for areas damaged by climate change, increased food and housing costs as useful land shrinks, and to pay for the upcoming climate refugee crises and ensuing wars. Pay a little more now, or pay a lot more later.

You mean the costs of having to mow the lawn more or harvest more crops from all the increased plant growth?

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com