<Getting to Know Daniel Yergin The Oil Drum DrumBeat: August 20, 2006>
<DrumBeat: August 18, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: August 20, 2006>

311 comments on DrumBeat: August 19, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Kevembuangga on August 22, 2006 - 12:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
An obvious one is that some of the the electricity replaces NG used for home heating, and we see more and more resistive heating being used.

"resistive" !!!
It is absolutely moronic to use ANYTHING but heat pumps for heating, no matter what the primary fuel for the heat pump is, you could even build wood powered heat pumps.
Nick is right on this one.

Another place where a good understanding of thermodynamics makes a LOT of difference.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GliderGuider on August 22, 2006 - 6:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I would disagree - not with what's the better technical solution, but in terms of what will actually happen.  Heat pumps are obviously the better  solution for new construction, especially in buildings where sufficient land or a water source is available.  However, we may find ourselves in a situation where existing  homes with no option for retrofitting heat pumps (high density urban homes with no land, and owners with no capital) discover that resistive heat has gotten cheaper per BTU than NG or heating oil.  In that case, a trip to Home Depot for baseboard heaters is suddenly on the honey-do list.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on August 22, 2006 - 7:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
However, we may find ourselves in a situation where existing homes with no option for retrofitting heat pumps

Not necessarily so, an air-to-air heat pump is just air conditioning in reverse.
Plus you rely on "resistive heat has [got] cheaper per BTU than NG or heating oil" which is speculative.
For instance, if the electric car takes hold the market may balance the prices the other way around (for a while at least), the EV still keeping the advantage of better efficiency.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GliderGuider on August 22, 2006 - 9:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Regarding the cost of electricity vs. oil, of course it's speculative.  However, I think it's a pretty safe bet.  Electricity at the plug is about $0.10/kWh where I live.  A barrel of oil contains about 1700 kWh, which gives it a cost of $0.04/kWh. This means that if electricity costs stay put and oil goes to $170/bbl, they at parity.  It's virtually an article of the Peak Oil faith that oil prices will go that high and higher as depletion starts to bite.  The notion that the cost per kWh of electricity and oil will cross over at some point is hardly an extreme speculation.

"If the electric car takes hold" strikes me as a much more tenuous speculation than that, given the  the resource and cost requirements for fleet replacement over the probable timeframe for the requirement.  Electric cars will only become popular in North America if they are perceived to have the same utility at lower cost than their FF brothers.  They may start to penetrate the market to some degree over the next 5 years, but only if the majors decide to support the idea.  So far that committment is sorely lacking.  What that suggests to me is that EVs will only take off once depletion has set in and caused at least a doubling of fuel prices.  Once we're in that situation, we may already be in a recession, and that alone will make the fleet replacement costs a severe problem, not to mention maintaining the production, distribution and support systems the new fleet will require.  We're much more likely to simply see people drive their existing cars much less.

Again, I believe that whatever new electrical capacity is brought online as oil depletes will be used for many purposes, at many different efficiencies.  Trying to define the prospects for specific technologies in that environment is an exercise best approached with extreme caution and nice wide error bars.

As you might have guessed, I have no (zip, zero, nada) faith that technological solutions are either possible or appropriate. I think the scale of the looming crisis is going to utterly swamp any remediation efforts we can put in place, at least down to the community level.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GliderGuider on August 22, 2006 - 10:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I found these comment on air source heat pumps at http://www.hydroonenetworks.com/en/efficiency/heating_cooling/heat_pumps/

An air source heat pump is used in conjunction with a back-up heating system. During the coldest periods it is more efficient for the back-up furnace to provide the heating.

And:

Compared to electric resistance heating, an air source heat pump may save you up to 30% on your annual heating bill

It's obviously a useful technology, but I'm not turning cartwheels yet.  When the cost/Btu of NG and heating oil passes 70% of the cost of resistive electric heat they will become more attractive.

Again, there are lots of nice gizmos out there that people in developed nations can and will take advantage of.  However, absent a true disruptive technology that addresses more than one element of the problematique, we are left with population reduction as the only medium term "solution".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on August 22, 2006 - 6:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is a badly written, or out of date article.

"During the coldest periods it is more efficient for the back-up furnace to provide the heating."  is misleading.  A heat pump is always more efficient.  What they mean is that the backup is cheaper because the heat pump heat gain becomes relatively low - this of course depends on the backup fuel being much cheaper, which is the kind of thing you've been talking about.

"Compared to electric resistance heating, an air source heat pump may save you up to 30% on your annual heating bill"

What they should say is that your overall lifecycle cost will be lower.  Your monthly bills will fall by much more than 30%.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GliderGuider on August 22, 2006 - 10:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I found these comment on air source heat pumps at http://www.hydroonenetworks.com/en/efficiency/heating_cooling/heat_pumps/

An air source heat pump is used in conjunction with a back-up heating system. During the coldest periods it is more efficient for the back-up furnace to provide the heating.

And:

Compared to electric resistance heating, an air source heat pump may save you up to 30% on your annual heating bill

It's obviously a useful technology, but I'm not turning cartwheels yet.  When the cost/Btu of NG and heating oil passes 70% of the cost of resistive electric heat they will become more attractive.

Again, there are lots of nice gizmos out there that people in developed nations can and will take advantage of.  However, absent a true disruptive technology that addresses more than one element of the problematique, we are left with population reduction as the only medium term "solution".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

311 comments on DrumBeat: August 19, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version