I disagree. I think heating with electric is now a great option for new houses in concert with a grid tie solar system. That's what I do. I heat with electric resistive and I still had 4500KWH surplus this year obviously more of a challenge for big old houses though.
Yet every installation like that works to increase the likelihood that the utility won't be able to supply those loads when the sun is not producing power.
That doesn't make much sense. Most of my energy production is in summer and I don't heat in the summer. Besides I'm pretty sure the grid operators have it figured out.
The generators sell less power so they can't afford to have units just sitting there not making any money, so they retire them, and then when power is needed there is no generation available. Just simple economics on the part of the companies that own the power plants, which in most cases are no longer regulated pubic utilities.
Not sure how various states/grid operators are handling this issue, but the obvious market based solution is to create a market for "ready reserve" where dispatchable power plants can get paid to be on standby, whether or not they are called on to produce. If I recall, an oversight in the Texas market design that become very apparent in February of this year.
I dont think I can buy that. It is just too much of an oversimplification. There always needs to be peaker plants that are not used often, for record high temperatures, maintenance and shutdowns, etc. There apparently is a market for such things. IF renewables are making some power producers go out of business, that is just the market working. I dont see how that changes peaker operations much. The few problems that have happened, the issue was more with the ISO and record temperatures than the renewables.
I think that's already standard practice in some/many places- CA ISO talks about non-spinning reserve "capable of being synchronized to the grid and ramping to a specified level within 10 minute".
No fracking is banned in NYS. You are WAY behind the times. There was a moratorium for a while prior to 2015.
Oh yea, then in the winter you will transfer heat from the earth to the house.
Here along the coast, water table is high enough that you really have a great HVAC system. I wonder what would happen if almost everyone had one of these systems. Would the temperature change to any significance? (the groundwater )
Not to worry. 75% of those BTUs will sneak back into the house to be pumped out again.
More than that, if the waste heat is used for district cooling using absorption refrigeration.
In the South, more heat will be pumped into the Earth during the summer than is extracted during the winter, causing a local temperature increase. In the North, the opposite.... why is it a bad thing? It's just heat transfer, right? Earth will give it up later.
Oh yea, then in the winter you will transfer heat from the earth to the house.
Oh, gawd! Nuclear's a twofer: both a poor net energy return and an astronomical cost.
Okay, but is it a bad thing? If yes, why?
One of the things a lot of people overlook is interruptible consumption.
Sorry, can't say. I'm an engineer, not a geologist or climatologist.
The kicker is the ex-gov put the arm on the gas company to force them to allow the hookups. First deep freeze, everyone is going to be mighty chilly.
tragar.com
