NYS electricity costs

ScottyJack wrote

can you switch to nat gas if you have oil now without replacing furnace?  can you modify your furnace?

You can convert the burner, but it is way better to just replace the whole unit with one that is specifically designed for gas. My oil furnace boiler cracked, which is another risk if you just replace the burner. New gas units are very efficient also.

I was doing a reno on our place in 1991. First idea was just to move the oil burner. It was old as hell and the plumber said "It will cost $2000 to move or $4000 to replace." We got onto the idea of replacing it and at the same time the gas company sent me a letter saying they'd hook me up to the gas line for free. (A $1500 value! or whatever).

So I no longer had a tank in he basement, no soot on everything and my bills (which now included hot water) dropped by about half.  And I don't have to deal with the oil company dropping $600 worth of heating oil into my tank in May.  

My furnace which is now 25 years old is labeled as 92% efficient, whatever that means.

Trump is not a conservative or even a republican for that matter and I don't support him at all.

Coach Z wrote

Unfortunately liberals lose their ability to do math or rationalize facts when thier idoilogy conflicts with reality.

I don't know if you are calling me a mindless liberal but you can go back and look at my stance on so many issues and can't possibly come to that conclusion. I can however predict with 100% certainty where you stand, infact I don't have to read your posts - I just have to hold my nose and watch Faux news.

You seem to ignore the fact that we in upstate NY pay less for Natural gas than people in Ohio, WV or Penn. I have no problem with people converting to NG when it's cheaper for them to do so. But most of Vt is rural and not on a residential service pipeline. Delivered LPG gas is very expensive and not that environmentally friendly and is not the same thing as Natural gas. Except for electric baseboard, Propane is the most expensive way to heat and a pipeline won't make it cheaper.

Coach Z wrote

Trump is not a conservative or even a republican for that matter and I don't support him at all.

Coach you can say he isn't a conservative, but you can't say he isn't a republican.  More republicans voted for him than any other, by a significant margin. He is by definition a republican.

None of this has anything to do with Fox News - you just keep repeating that over and over.  I get my news from the WSJ.

X made some great points that you haven't bothered to try to refute. You keep spouting opinion with no fact to back it up.  Not like you at all.   Given you have all the free time in the world Ptex is either working on something to follow up his invention of the Internet or can't beat X factual ass kicking of the liberal arguement.  

It's not just about NYS.  Blocking this pipeline denies the rest of NE from this nat gas where they could utilize the pipeline.  To TGF point would you prefer a pipeline to thousands of train cars of unstable old sand oil being rail roaded across NYS to get to New England?

Coach Z wrote

 You keep spouting opinion with no fact to back it up.

Actually my statements about the price of energy in the upstate area compared to the areas around us and those that produce natural gas is quite easy to verify, and I did before I made the statements. Go look it up - do the work, I did. I can also say for certainty that the thing stopping the oil sands trains is not a pipeline, it's the high cost of production compared to the current market price. You seem to ignore the fact that in true inflation adjusted dollars, out cost of energy is the lowest it has ever been, so where are all those jobs. The jobs issue will not be solved with cheaper energy so go find a better argument.

Other states have lower cost Nat Gas so if you are looking to build a new plant or move a plant from a higher cost area to a lower one it certainly is a factor along with taxes which are too high and not likely to change.  Heating costs end up being thousands more per year in the region compared to other places to live.  Liberal compassion for the poor goes out the window when it conflicts with the religion of anti carbon.

 In the below links you will se that some regions have energy costs half that of the Northeast.  Where are your facts coming from again.  Don't recall any sources noted.  

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/

I'd like to know what the real cost would be once this infrastructure was constructed and run.  The gas will have to be pumped along the way, and that will require energy.  The whole system will need to be monitored and maintained, and that will cost money.  So on top of whatever they pay at the plant for this gas, it will have to be up-charged by the amount to get it there.  The beauty of gas as a heating source was availability.

Honestly the best way to transport anything is via electricity - the infrastructure is existing, and relatively easy to maintain, and is also relatively efficient.  Unfortunately electric heat is relatively inefficient.

If they really wanted to make the best of that gas they would burn it at a NG power plant and distribute it via the grid.  The issue is how to effectively convert it back into heat energy.

And honestly there are better ways to get energy from NG, but it's not being done on the large scale.  It can be reformed into hydrogen gas while capturing the carbon and used to power fuel cells.  That still does not solve the issue of groundwater contamination and bedrock instability caused by fracking.

PeeTex wrote

Coach Z wrote

 You keep spouting opinion with no fact to back it up.

I can also say for certainty that the thing stopping the oil sands trains is not a pipeline, it's the high cost of production compared to the current market price.

this is the fundamental principal of capitalism right??  supply/demand - Production cost/profit!

Solar industry is killing it.  one of the major gainers, just killing it with job creation.  Who could really be against clean energy and more jobs.....  

Fossil fuels/carbon is the religion of the Republican Conservatives.  A religion based in investments in the carbon extraction and fossil fuel industry.  

Who thinks CoachZCarbon might be invested in the fossil fuels???  I do.   

ScottyJack wrote

 

Solar industry is killing it.

I guess you could say that

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650

The Dirty Side of a “Green” Industry

As people worldwide increasingly feel the heat of climate change, many are applauding the skyrocketing growth of China’s fledgling solar-cell industry. Solar power and other “green” technologies, by providing electricity from renewable energy sources like the sun and wind, create hope for a world free of coal-burning pollution and natural resource depletion. A recent Washington Post article, however, has revealed that China’s booming solar industry is not as green as one might expect. Many of the solar panels that now adorn European and American rooftops have left behind a legacy of toxic pollution in Chinese villages and farmlands.

The Post article describes how Luoyang Zhonggui, a major Chinese polysilicon manufacturer, is dumping toxic factory waste directly on to the lands of neighboring villages, killing crops and poisoning residents. Other polysilicon factories in the country have similar problems, either because they have not installed effective pollution control equipment or they are not operating these systems to full capacity. Polysilicon is a key component of the sunlight-capturing wafers used in solar photovoltaic (PV) cells.

China is now a global leader in solar PV manufacture. According to the recent Worldwatch Institute report Powering China’s Development: The Role of Renewable Energy, PV production capacity in China jumped from 350 megawatts (MW) in 2005 to over 1,000 MW in 2006, with 1,500 MW estimated for 2007. High-profile initial public stock offerings for several Chinese companies, some valued in the billions of dollars, have focused global attention on how this industry will progress—having literally developed from scratch into the world’s third largest PV industry in just five years. Most of this development, however, is driven by global demand, with over 90 percent of Chinese-made solar PV systems being exported to Europe, Japan, and the United States.

Technologies exist to recycle the chemical byproducts of solar-cell production, but some Chinese polysilicon plants, including Luoyang Zhonggui, are cutting costs and corners by avoiding significant extra investment in pollution control. The cheaper prices of their products, which do not currently factor in environmental costs, are projected to fan the rapid expansion of Chinese-made solar PV systems around the world, especially in industrial countries that can afford the still-expensive units.

Although China will eventually benefit from this green technology as well as costs decline further, for the time being the industry continues to tread the traditional path of “pollute first, clean up afterwards.” At stake are the underrepresented groups in Chinese society, especially rural farmers who depend on increasingly polluted lands for a living. China’s shining solar industry, while enabling blue skies elsewhere, is leaving behind a scarred landscape at home.

So far, the environment has been the biggest loser in China’s rapid economic growth. The irony of the recent Post exposé is that the environment is not even being considered seriously by those Chinese industries that bear a “green” tag, and whose products support progress toward a better environment. As China becomes more industrialized and strives to meet the insatiable demands of a burgeoning urban middle class, there is every reason to question how long the current state of affairs can last, and how much time it will take before businesses care enough about their impacts to truly protect the environment.

your above post is a result of corporate capitalism practiced by the likes of OrangeTopTinyHands....

OK so who's going to make the panels?

ScottyJack wrote

your above post is a result of corporate capitalism practiced by the likes of OrangeTopTinyHands....

Not defending Trump as I cant stand him but Scotty you are wrong.  Most of those Chinese solar firms are owned by the Chinese govt and thier military and political leaders

Coach Z wrote

Other states have lower cost Nat Gas so if you are looking to build a new plant or move a plant from a higher cost area to a lower one it certainly is a factor along with taxes which are too high and not likely to change.  Heating costs end up being thousands more per year in the region compared to other places to live.  Liberal compassion for the poor goes out the window when it conflicts with the religion of anti carbon.

 In the below links you will se that some regions have energy costs half that of the Northeast.  Where are your facts coming from again.  Don't recall any sources noted.  

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/

So this link says we NYs pay $0.16/kWh - do you, no - in fact you said you were about $0.065/kW/Hr. If you are going to use citations which you know to be in error and in fact you have already given personal data that proves they are in error than why should I even both to post links - you seem to be living in a dual reality in some weird dimension only a crazed Reganite understands. BTW - I used data I gathered from multiple suppliers including the price comparison sites for those looking to change suppliers. I did the same for OH, WVa & PA. I did not look at Vt, NH or MA.

MikeK wrote

I'd like to know what the real cost would be once this infrastructure was constructed and run.  The gas will have to be pumped along the way, and that will require energy.  The whole system will need to be monitored and maintained, and that will cost money.  So on top of whatever they pay at the plant for this gas, it will have to be up-charged by the amount to get it there.  The beauty of gas as a heating source was availability.

Honestly the best way to transport anything is via electricity - the infrastructure is existing, and relatively easy to maintain, and is also relatively efficient.  Unfortunately electric heat is relatively inefficient.

If they really wanted to make the best of that gas they would burn it at a NG power plant and distribute it via the grid.  The issue is how to effectively convert it back into heat energy.

And honestly there are better ways to get energy from NG, but it's not being done on the large scale.  It can be reformed into hydrogen gas while capturing the carbon and used to power fuel cells.  That still does not solve the issue of groundwater contamination and bedrock instability caused by fracking.

Mike - let's look at the reality here:
"Unfortunately electric heat is relatively inefficient." Not true, electric heat is 100% efficient, it is the most efficient heating method out there. It just happens to be one of the most expensive.

"If they really wanted to make the best of that gas they would burn it at a NG power plant and distribute it via the grid.  The issue is how to effectively convert it back into heat energy." Again - not true. A NG powerplant on a good day is about 65% efficient and that would be a combine cycle plant running both GTs & Steam generators. Add to that the distribution losses and you are down to less than 50%. A modern gas furnace is 95% efficient, piping relatively low pressure gas is pretty efficient as well, in fact the whole process is about 90% efficient. So by far, Natural gas is the most efficient way to go.

"there are better ways to get energy from NG": again - not true - the best way to get energy from it is to burn it to heat our homes and for hot water. Making Hydrogen is very inefficient and compressing hydrogen to get it's energy density up to where it is usable is wildly inefficient. Hydrogen as a fuel source is crazy, that is unless you are using wasted Solar or wind to produce it - then as an energy storage system it makes sense.

The two big issues with Natural gas is that it is a horrible green house gas, much worse than CO2 and because we are venting so much of it through poor containment at wells and processing plants and general leaks in the systems we are creating more overall greenhouse effect than we are saving by using it over gasoline or other petroleum based products. What we need to do is stop using so much energy in the first place and cheaper energy is not going to make that happen.

ScottyJack wrote

Who could really be against clean energy and more jobs.....  

I don't think anyone of us are but PV solar is all about dirty energy and more Jobs for China.
Photo-voltaic solar is not clean - I won't state what has already been said. What we need is Thermal solar, like solar furnaces and algae farms.
 

Yeah P, you are right... I don't know what I was thinking here... I'm used to heat energy being waste.

I let my common sense get the better of me in thinking about electric heat in that every application was terrible, but that's more a limitation in current from the box (or was) now that I think of it.  And for hot water it all comes down to the heat exchange, and perhaps practical limits on current.

Now that I have my head on straight, the whole advantage fuel cell is that you can sequester the carbon more readily.  Reformers that "strip" hydrogen from methane and converting that to electric is not as efficient AT CREATING HEAT ENERGY (this I need to remember!!) as directly burning the methane, but you get no C02.  Solid oxide fuel cells have the advantage that they operate at very high temps, and they generate a lot of waste heat while producing electricity, so that waste heat (like the waste heat you would have at a power plant) can be recycled and used to heat water and your home.  The whole idea with those (which is relatively dead now) was that you could generate power onsite, sequester the carbon, and use the waste power plant heat as useful energy.  I agree with you about the leaks being a major issue because of the relative greenhouse efficiency of CH4 vs C02.

At any rate, despite my folly with the last post, on the economic end I'd still like to know if NG would still be cheaper than another alternative given the cost associated with a pipe.  Surely it would be cheaper than trucking it (and hopefully not using oil or another fossil as the energy to move it).

I can definitely see advantages to a pipe, but I'm against fracking for the obvious reasons.  I've kept my mouth shut on the issue mostly because I don't have a better idea for how people should heat their homes.

Mike,
Thermal Solar, Passive Solar are great starts. Fuel cells have  along way to go and they are manufacturing intensive which means pollution. I don't have an answer either and if I did I would be out trying to sell it to the world. The only answer I can come up with is STOP FORNICATING, but that's no fun.

The .065 is only a small part of the Total cost for the electric.  As noted the LP area gets a special rate hold over from the Olympic deal.

Make sure to read all the posts and don't nod off old guy.

Given the figures I posted are from Obama's dept of energy I don't think you can say they are a slanted source.