We are in the very early planning stages of the remodel of our 1897 Victorian house. Since the house basically has no systems we can start from scratch with what ever method of water heating, house heating, cooking, etc we want. The house has three floors, and is in a mild climate area- Alameda CA.
I originally was going to use natural gas to heat the water, cook with and heat the house. But I got to thinking (yea I know its dangerous) this is the house we plan to age in place in so what ever we do has to last and be viable 30 years from now. I just can’t image that natural gas isn’t going to get prohibitively expensive in say ten years. I don’t even think that there will be any of it left in 20 yrs at any price.
So, since you can’t make your own NG as easy as you can make your own electricity (and who doesn’t think that solar panels are going to come way down in cost and go way up in efficiency in the next ten years) I’m thinking the house should be all electric.
So finally to my question; which electrical products do y’all think would be best to heat the water, heat the house, and cook with? I would love to get this right the first time.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Replies
Of course as part of this restoration we will be adding intelligent energy efficency methods like spray foam insulation, and solar hot water heating.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Habitat for Humanity has done some work with Oak Ridge National Labs on houses with ground-source heat-pumps (direct injection, where the actual refrigerant goes down 3" dia. bentonite-filled bore holes in long spirals of copper tubing). Solar cells powered the electrics on the HVAC, running backwards to sell power back to the utility when the systems were off. No need for heat strips, of course.
While the solar cells wouldn't run the systems entirely (or rarely), the total heating / cooling energy cost, deducting their sold electricity (separately metered), averages something like $6-8 / month. JLC had an article a while back, and I called and talked at length to one of the principals with the equipment supplier. They bought a company in Murfreesboro, TN, and now manufacture their own.
Interesting stuff - I'm convinced. Try to find that article.
Oh - and hot water out of it, too.
Forrest
They using copper or PEX? I thought most of those were PEX or PEX-like.
jt8
"If you can't sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there and worrying. It's the worry that gets you, not the loss of sleep." -- Dale Carnegie
Hey Forrest,
That sounds very intriguing...though ground source heat pumps are pretty rare around here. I understand how the heat pump works but then how typically is this heat transfered to the house?
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
<how typically is this heat transfered to the house? >
The inside-the-house parts are the same as a regular heat pump; instead of having the refrigerant lines go to a heat exchanger (radiator) and fan in a big hollow box outside the house like every other heat pump or AC unit, the refrigerant just goes down in the ground. About 75-100' of bore per ton most sitautions. I understand.
Copper for better heat transfer, and to take the refrigerant pressure. The plastic tube systems are "two-stage" - a coil of refrigerant gives up/takes on heat to/from a coil of "anti-freeze" that is pumped through plastic tubes in the ground or in a well of under your dock. Much lower efficiency on these.
Much longer warranty on equipment, because it never sees extremes of temperature. ground temp's pretty constant year round.
Forrest
The inside-the-house parts are the same as a regular heat pump; instead of having the refrigerant lines go to a heat exchanger (radiator) and fan in a big hollow box outside the house like every other heat pump or AC unit, the refrigerant just goes down in the ground. About 75-100' of bore per ton most sitautions. I understand.
Sorry I've never seen a heat pump so that what I was asking is, whats inside the house and how does the heat get distributed thru out the house?
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
A standard heat pump is the same as a whole-house air conditioner. The outside unit contains the compressor, coil, and a fan, and the inside unit contains a coil and the circulating fan. The difference between a heat pump and a regular AC is that the heat pump can be run "backwards" so that you cool the outdoors and heat the indoors. Oddly, this is something like 3x more efficient than resistance heating in a mild climate.A ground source heat pump is conceptually similar except that instead of the fan in the outside unit, water from a well or lake or whatever is pumped over the freon coil. And, since this unit doesn't need to be outside to access the outside air, it's generally combined with the inside unit in one package -- just the water pipes running outside.In most cases the water is circulated through buried pipes to exchange heat with the ground, vs using water from a well or lake. Hence "ground source".
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
One nice thing is that all electric resistance heating is pretty much equally efficient. So you can pick between the options based on how well they fit into your plans rather than picking the "most efficient".
The one place where you might want to vary from that is to install a heat pump vs just an air conditioner, since, especially in a mild climate, heat pumps are more than 100% efficient.
On the other hand, IIRC the climate in Alamedea is so mild that efficient heating isn't a big worry. Plus resistance heating (in-floor, baseboard, etc) can easily be controlled on a room-by-room basis, both improving comfort and reducing heating cost. It's also essentially maintenance-free.
Probably from a construction cost point of view you'd want in-floor heating in the bathrooms and maybe one or two other areas where bare feet are likely, and baseboard heating in the rest. There's also the option of in-ceiling heating, but it's not the best idea for general use since the heat will tend to stay near the ceiling. You can also use fan-driven "space heaters" (which are not all as unattractive as you might envision) in areas where there's not enough baseboard area for effective baseboard heat.
Even with 100% resistance heating, you still want some sort of ventillation system to redistribute the air and keep things from stagnating. If you don't go with central air (so that you can use the fan-only setting), you should have a separate ventillation system installed.
For cooking I'd recommend a glass-top range with resistance elements and convection oven, or the equivalent cooktop and stand-alone oven. We are quite pleased with our GE unit, purchased 3-4 years back. However, if someone in the house is a diehard gas range person, either a gas cooktop or an electric unit with induction heating may be required. (Even with gas cooktop, an electric convection oven is the way to go.)
For water heating I'd recommend the best-insulated conventional electric tank heater you can find, or else a Marathon brand super-insulated unit. It's only in limited circumstances that tankless electric units are more efficient than tanks, and the tankless units are fussier and generally require higher maintenance. An electric tank unit you can install and forget about for a decade or two if the water is reasonably good.
Of course, with regard to AC, refrigerator, freezer, etc, you should look at the energy efficiency labels, and pick stuff that's at least better than average.
Unfortunately this idea is really making me do mental backflips. Right now gas is the best way to heat your house and water and cook your food (at least in the mild CA climate). So the idea of heating a house electrically is causing some of my gears to strip.
I'll definately look into the heatpump-de super heater thing. I wonder if the fact that we are on an 'island' with a very high water table is going to mess with that...
The house will someday be a grand restored Victorian (we hope) so I would like to heat/cool the place with as llittle visual impact as possible. Don't know about those electric baseboard heaters I've never seen them not look fugly...
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
I can't predict where prices are going. But cooking with an electric stove is miserable.
Depends on what you're used to, I suspect.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I can't predict where prices are going. But cooking with an electric stove is miserable.
Yep I agree I actually own a nice big fancy Wolf gas stove but I am so convinced of whats going to happen with NG prices long term that I almost want to sell it now before it becomes a white elephant...
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Went over to Taunton's "Cook's talk" (Taunton forums at the topy of your screen) , here is a link on induction cooktop opinions and experiences.
34283.1
In a mild climate all electric is the way to go. I built 5400 sq ft, with 3 16 seer heat pumps, insulated way above code, got the reflective glazings, energy efficient appliances, electric water heater with timer and bill averages 100.00 a month.
so lets say gas doubles in 10 tears.i gaurentee you the electric companys will be right there with them. you know the story" gas got so high everybody switched to electric and now we have to upgrade our equipment so lets double our rates".
if you enjoy your stove ,keep it. no matter how high gas gets it can't use that much gas.
i like the idea of running service for both gas and elctric to all your appliances.
now if your really worried that in your old age you can't afford utilitys,sell your 2 millon dollar restored home and move to kansas,think of the savings!!
hindsight: should of sold my motorhome and bought a fleet of toyotas and hondas 3 years ago.larryhand me the chainsaw, i need to trim the casing just a hair.
Personally, I think you are getting excellent advice here.
I put in a new furnace 6 years ago - 82% efficient. Honestly, I would have put in a 90% efficient if I could have justified it.
I live in a 1931 house. My family owned it since 1951.
If I could have had the foresight I would have:
Ripped out the old 1956 furnace;
Installed a geothermal heating system and/or a heat pump.
Here in B.C. we have extremely good electrical rates. I would NEVER consider having an all-electric house.Quality repairs for your home.
AaronR ConstructionVancouver, Canada
I just moved to the burbs, and also like you wanted to go all electric due to rising NG prices, and favorable elec rates. I looked into ground source heat pumps. My house needs est. 2 tons cooling and 6 ton heating, but my ductwork maxes out at 4 ton. So the plan was to drill one well per ton, 4 total. With a 2-stage unit, 4 ton HP, I still needed 2 tons htg from backup resistive heaters. Desuperheater for HWH also included. When I got the quote for $25k, the plan died.I can get 92%Eff. 2 stage, var speed for 3-4K, keep the old 10 SEER A/C and it will take many years to make up the difference in fuel costs. One of my fears is, if I sell, the system will be a liability rather than an asset. Anybody else confront my situation?Btw, one reason I am "bullish" on electricity is the extensive low sulfer coal reserves that we have, and nuclear power, if it becomes popular again.
Edited 7/20/2007 11:55 pm ET by Pixburd
Sorry, you misunderstand.
I can't conceive of putting in an all-electric house, even with our (British Columbia) advantageous electrical rates.Quality repairs for your home.
AaronR ConstructionVancouver, Canada
DanH: The average MAXIMUM temperature from November through April is below 66 degrees, with the Dec. and Jan being about 58. While it seldom gets below freezing (most houses have their water lines on the outside of the house and are uninsulated), I doubt that any amount of insulation in house in Alameda during the winter months would get you up to a comfortable temperature (or at lest what for me would be a comfortable temperature. You usually don't need much supplemental heating, but you do need that little bit for most months of the year. As the old quote goes "the coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in S.F....MadMadScientist: I believe the bulk of the electrical generating plants in the Bay Area (most in the Pittsburg area) are fired with natural gas. There is some power from Diablo Canyon nuclear and a small amount from wind power, which might grow, but for the foreseeable future, I would guess that the bulk of your electricity is going to come from natural gas fired power plants.http://ludb.clui.org/tag/state:CA/Power+Plant+%3B2F+Electrical+Generation/For ground source heat pumps, water sogged ground is much preferable to dry earth. The best source for a heat source/heat sink would be to run a loop out into San Francisco Bay... The problem with a ground source heat pump is putting in the ground loop. This can be done with either a vertical well (probably expensive), or running a loop or tubing around your property, which requires the space around your house that can be trenched. I would guess that a standard air sourced heat pump might be the most cost effective give the costs associated with installing the loop. There are many web sources explaining and extolling the virtues of the ground source heat pumps if you do a search.
Well, let me make an appeal for NG. The prices for NG have been pretty good for the resultant BTUs used, even with the recent spikes in price.
But, an all-gas answer will be as inelegant as an all electric one.
NG is very much nicer for tankless heaters and for stove-top burners. Electricity does a better job in ovens (and allows for much better convection baking).
Now, whether gass or electricity would better heat in Alameda winters--I've not the first clue. Not sure I'd want to use resistance heating for water in a radiant floor, but finding the balance for heating water for only the amount needed over your year is something you need a qualified local person for.
Now, in case you'd like to extend the self-sufficiency argument a bit, consider LP instead of NG (even though all the nozzle & burner changes are a PITA). Why is that? Well, a self0sufficient person could "crack" their own gas, come to cases. LP tankages also eliminates some of the seismic issues with running volitile gases in pipelines about.
It doesn't really make sense to use resistance heating to heat water for in-floor heating -- more reasonable to just imbed resistance elements in the floor.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Bang for buck, I don't think geothermal heatpumps can be beat. Assuming a well insulated house and enough space to drill or trench the tubing in. You can add a desuperheater tank (i think its called) that will provide hot water in the summer (the heat it pulls from the house it puts in the tank).
Having said that, I don't think I'd shell out the additional expense (putting the tubing in) unless I thought I was going to be living there at least 10 years.
As far as cooking, I don't know. But I thought you already had a gas stove?
jt8
"If you can't sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there and worrying. It's the worry that gets you, not the loss of sleep." -- Dale Carnegie
Well this time around we are planning on being in this house for the next 30years at least...damn I hope so I don't think I have it in me to restore another delapidated Victorian.
Yea I do have the fancy gas stove and I do love gas tankless water heaters too. Buuut dang I just can't see those as being practical in 10 years or so.
Yea ground source heat pumps seem to be the way to go except they don't seem common around here-but I have to look into that further.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Yea I do have the fancy gas stove and I do love gas tankless water heaters too. Buuut dang I just can't see those as being practical in 10 years or so.
So worry about those two items in 10 years? Maybe by then a better solution will have been arrived at (or a current solution might be cheaper). Stove & water heater are easier to change out than some things.
jt8
"If you can't sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there and worrying. It's the worry that gets you, not the loss of sleep." -- Dale Carnegie
NG is the best for heat. If its not around in 20 years, don't expect any gasoline either, as NG reserves are much larger than any current oilfield.
Then your problem is Where do I find a mule to get me to town?
NG is the best for heat. If its not around in 20 years, don't expect any gasoline either, as NG reserves are much larger than any current oilfield.
Then your problem is Where do I find a mule to get me to town?
No trust me in ten years there are going to be a ton of all electric cars on the road and in twenty years most cars are going to be electric. I agree that right now NG is best for heating but in 20 years no way.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
I personally don't think that all-electric cars are that generally feasible (though certainly attractive for certain urban environments). More practical is a diesel-electric hybrid, running off of biodiesel.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I agree that now in the short term diesel-electric plug-in hybrids are the way to go. I can't understand why the BIG 3 automakers don't get off their butts and make one NOW. Toyota is killing them and if they could come out with a not totally farked PHEV they could take a lot of the sales away from the Prius...
The Li-Ion Polymer batteries that are coming on line are going to make all electric cars more realistic in the future.
Heck right now for a stupid amount of money (uh like $50,000) you can take a prius and have it turned into a PHEV that gets an honest 100mpg!
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
I'm talking even longer term. It's more efficient, in terms of end-to-end cost/energy, to run a diesel hybrid than to run an all-electric unit.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I'm talking even longer term. It's more efficient, in terms of end-to-end cost/energy, to run a diesel hybrid than to run an all-electric unit.
Is that assuming the electricity to charge the batteries is coming from what? If we assume that in the future it will be possible to have a roof mounted grid intertied system that can actually provide for the bulk of your electricity usage I don't see how that can be true. I've read several studies that show that the payback for the resources used to build the panels is 2-3yrs. After that its free energy so-to-speak.
One thing about electric cars charged from the grid. They can actually become less polluting as time goes on. If the grid gets cleaner so do they-this is not true with a diesel hybrid.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
I think there's probably more opportunity in small-scale wind than in small-scale PV, at least in the next 10-20 years.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
there are no electric cars on the road now. they are gasoline fired generators with batterys for storage. And that is great until you want to move something besides the vehicle
NG will be here a lot longer than gasoline, just based on current projections. Most oil wells produce some gas.
Actually, there are several all-electric cars commercially available now.But, to add to your other point, there are other ways to produce "natural gas" (or a close equivalent) than getting it from wells. It used to be much of the illumination gas used in the US was produced by coking coal, eg.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Isn't recycling the batterys going to be a concern, and won't that just change fuels, not the problem? Electricity has to be generated somehow.
Yes that is a concern the LI polymer batteries are not made of super toxic stuff.
I believe that in the near future with solar panels getting cheaper and more efficent people will be generating a lot of thier own electricity.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
I believe that in the near future with solar panels getting cheaper and more efficent people will be generating a lot of thier own electricity.
I think the thin-cell stuff has a lot of potential. If you produced an efficient house and had the thin cell stuff as your roofing, could you produce enough electricity to power your house? I don't know, but it certainly seems worth pursuing.
You hear people say, "oh you'll never get people to spend $ to put those PV's on their house." But stop and think about what houses looked like 100 years ago. Many did not have electricity, phones, or indoor plumbing. If you walked up to a person 100 years ago and suggested installing electricity, phones, and indoor plumbing in EVERY house, they probably would have laughed at you and said it was too expensive. But here we are.
jt8
Recycling batteries is a a problem. But, oddly, the larger the battery the less of a problem it is, relatively speaking.I forget all the factors that went into the analysis, but about five years ago there was a Scientific American article that analyzed the available options for vehicle power. Pure battery is attractive in urban environments, but the range of such vehicles will be limited for the forseeable future -- you can install a larger battery but it increases cost and cuts economy. Plus the economy of the electric generator/transmission line/battery/motor sequence isn't all that great.Using a hybrid reduces the size of the required battery significantly, increases range, and eliminates transmission losses.The more exotic schemes like hydrogen fuel cells (which still rely on power generated by some other means) don't come close to the end-to-end efficiency of a diesel hybrid.We shouldn't be putting all our eggs in the hybrid basket, but we should certainly be putting more there (and in the diesel basket as well).
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Isn't recycling the batterys going to be a concern, and won't that just change fuels, not the problem? Electricity has to be generated somehow.
It depends on the battery. some are more toxic and hard to recycle than others. IIRC, the NiMH are easy to recycle but have more issues with heating up when they are charged quickly (so in an EV, you would have to deal with the heat some how..fans?). I don't know what the status of recycling lithium batteries is.
But even if charging the battery caused the same lbs of pollution, I would still go with the electricity, because the pollution is centralized at the power plant and there is potential for that polution to be scrubbed or treated in some other manner, thereby removing it from the equation. Whereas if you're talking about millions of pollution-belching cars, there is no simple way to treat their pollution.jt8
"If you can't sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there and worrying. It's the worry that gets you, not the loss of sleep." -- Dale Carnegie
But, to add to your other point, there are other ways to produce "natural gas" (or a close equivalent) than getting it from wells. It used to be much of the illumination gas used in the US was produced by coking coal, eg.
There is a new proposal to build a coal to gas plant in Wiscasset Maine on the site of the former Maine Yankee nuclear plant. I don't know where current technology is with respect to the gasification process. As you note, in the old days, coal gasification was used in cities to produce gas for lights. Practically every old city in New England has toxic waste sites comprised largely of the gunk that was left over after the coal gas was produced. The tarry substance was placed in "lagoons" and eventually covered, to be discovered later by unsuspecting landowners (like my unhappy client of some years ago) who found themselves looking for someone to sue to pay for the cleanup.
Yeah, and coal-burning plants produce radon. You environmentalists are always so negative!(Certainly the old techniques could not be used, for a number of reasons. But combustable gas is a relatively simple product, and can produced by a number of fairly simple processes. And with source materials like coal it -- in theory -- permits the removal of much of the carbon, eg, before the gas is pumped into the pipelines.)(Of course, I favor gassifying corn.)
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I was only a chemistry major for long enough to realize I would never master calculus, so what do I know, but if you take a solid, i.e. coal, and use it to make a gas, don't you have a lot of left over solid stuff to deal with?
Whale Oil, WHALE OIL!.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Not if the solid is ice. ;)In the olden days the coke was a product that could be sold to steel mills and the like. And any chemist now would tell you that the coal tars are too valuable to be dumped into a bog -- they're feedstocks for a number of chemical processes.But I'm not advocating coal gassification per se, just pointing out that there are many ways to make "gas".
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
(Of course, I favor gassifying corn.)
But I'm not advocating coal gassification per se, just pointing out that there are many ways to make "gas".
We don't grow much corn in Maine, but we do grow beans:)
Yeah, lots of folks know how to make gas from beans too.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
This months' Government Executive nagazine says the NEC is expecting to process at least 30 applications for Nuclear power plants in the next 3 years.It's been nearly 30 years since the last license was approved. The last plant completed, in 1996, was ordered in Wait for it1970.Since 2000 more than 40 plants have recieved 20 year license extensions. In 2006, 823 billion KWH of nuclear electricity was produced, more than the nations entire electrical output in 1960 and twice Englands entire 2005 output.SamT
Yeah, and coal-burning plants produce radon. You environmentalists are always so negative!
Coal mines, too--all coal and oil deposits are detectable above background ionization.
Power plant radon emission is largely from stored fuel.
(Of course, I favor gassifying corn.)
Even better, how about gassiying sawgrass or palmetto, or high-fructose sorghum--none of which tend to inflate food prices to make fuel. Sawgrass and switchgrass also require a lot less irrigation, too--lowering the "lifecycle" cost to produce fuel. Only real nagging question is what to do with the partially-digested cellulose (but, that's jsut as true with corn-based fuel, too).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I figure on gassifying it directly, vs using microbes to generate methane. Just heat it -- it'll produce a combustable gas.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I figure on gassifying it directly
Yeah, that's the hip thing right now. The deal they are hard at, just about 3.6 miles over that-a-way from my left shoulder is to work on leaf grass rather than grain.
There are two benefits to that process right now. First, corn needs water like it is going out of style, second, it needs nitrogen in the soil. The prairie grasses being worked on right now grow perenially, and with 'natural' sorts of rainfall/irrigation.
Best part right now is that, unlike a corn harvest, you mow the "fuel" grasses and bale them, just like hay. Curiously, the yeild of btu/acre winds up being very similar vice corn--but without the 'costs' of an annual crop (and the water & fertilizer costs, too). Also, fuel production does not reduce quantity of available food/feed stocks, either--there's some definite friction down south over all the corn going into Brazillian fuel stocks.
Ooh, just got a quick answer on what the "leftovers" are from sawgrass fuel production. Looks to be slightly sticky (plant protien) cellulose in middling-long strands. Sounds a bit like the 'feed' material for wheatboard. Hmm . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
(And the left-overs from corn ethanol production are actually a significant factor in the overall financial equation, as well as the "energy balance" of the process.)
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
(And the left-overs from corn ethanol production are actually a significant factor in the overall financial equation, as well as the "energy balance" of the process.)
I have no idea what they do with the corn residue left over from ethanol production, but depending on what state it is in, it might be usable as livestock feed.
A few months back I was reading about regular folks (farmers) who would plant soybean, sunflowers, rapeseed, safflower, etc.. One of the oil seed crops. They then ran the seeds through a press to extract most of the oil. A modified engine can burn that oil, or you can process it into biodiesel and any diesel engine can burn it. The remaining 'seed cake' was used as a high protein livestock feed.
jt8
"Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Yeah, my understanding is that it's high-protein and in relatively high demand as animal feed. And I wouldn't be surprised if some ended up in protein supplements in health food stores, etc.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
But this is a VERY mild climate (Bay Area). With a well-insulated home there should be little need to heat or cool. Ground source probably isn't worth the investment.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
"this is a VERY mild climate (Bay Area). With a well-insulated home there should be little need to heat or cool."
Exactly. Spend the money on insulation and efficient design and the source of heating becomes a secondary consideration. We live in a similar climate and heat with baseboards. I am able to zone my house heating certain rooms, and as our weather can change fast, don't have to worry about the lag that in-floor heating has. Our electric bill averages $75 an month or $ 2.50 a day, and I could easily knock that down by being a bit more diligent. - it's just that for a buck a day it's not worth the effort.
Using electricity to heat a house, even in Alameda, is crazy. It's too expensive. If you put in electric baseboard heat, you're really putting all your eggs in that basket.
I would consider installing some sort of forced-air system for heating and cooling. Then you can change the fuel source when you want relatively easily by replacing the furnace.
You should look into something like a pellet stove with an air-to-air heat exchanger. A heat-pump could work well in your climate as suggested as could the geo-thermal system if it's practical so close to the Bay.
Electric water heaters have a much shorter life than gas and they cost more to run. If you have gas at your house now you might consider installing a conventional gas water-heater and figure that it wouldn't be a big deal to replace it in 20 years with an electric if that's what you want.
IMHO it's not worth trying to plan what type of appliances you'll want in 20 to 30 years..........lives change too much too fast in too many ways for that to work.
Ed
I would be tempted to wire for electric to a hot water heater, the stove, clothes dryer, and for heating. Then install gas to those locations also. It will cost more but you will have things ripped up now, and it will be the easiest time to do it.
For now, I'd recommend a heat pump for the HVAC, ground looped if possible. And you might want to look at the microsplit units, unless you really want to rip things up enough to install ducting.
My approach would be to build what makes sense for now, and build in enough infrastructure to allow changes in the scheme later on if you want to. This would include running are conduit from a central point to boxes in most of the rooms. You never know what is going to be out there twenty or thirty years from now that you might want to run. Thirty years ago, nobody was running phone lines to more than one or two locations in a house, coax for cable TV was never run, and the internet wasn't even really thought of.
Tomorrow will bring things we haven't even begun to think about into our homes.
My approach would be to build what makes sense for now, and build in enough infrastructure to allow changes in the scheme later on if you want to. This would include running are conduit from a central point to boxes in most of the rooms. You never know what is going to be out there twenty or thirty years from now that you might want to run. Thirty years ago, nobody was running phone lines to more than one or two locations in a house, coax for cable TV was never run, and the internet wasn't even really thought of.
This is of course the best course forward. The only thing that I can see that couldn't be done this way is the GSHP. Better to dig the hole and get that done now while the lots an empty dustbowl...
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
You are right to fo all electric.
and who doesn't think that solar panels are going to come way down in cost and go way up in efficiency in the next ten years
Well, I don't. I watched photovoltaic cost drop and efficiency rise until the early 80's, has not moved since, still NOT cost effective, is only with gov. subsidies or mandates (well, eff. has gone way up for 3x and 4X junction cells, but too costly for any but orbital/space applications) - concentrators with Rankine/Sterling cycles will likely be more cost effective for large scale. Was in a meeting Thursday with some large concerns discussing ways to get large scale solar down to $2.50 per watt, pretty hard to do, no hope of silicon or GaAs cells ever getting that low for homeowner use.
That said, own house is 100% electric (if you rule out the fireplace). A little colder climate in Seattle area than the Bay area. PSE rates are about 9 cents/kW-hr.
Space Heating Heat pump for heating, air to air. I have all the parts for and wells for GSHP, but not worth my time to do the install till I retire, will do one then, but DIY cost will be under $2K vs the $10K and up for a pro installed system. Resistance heat would, IMO, totally stupid.
Water Heating Resistance, but no kids at home anymore. Another retirement project will be to salvage an old refrigerator and make a heat pump for water heating. (Some commercial units are available, but economic only if you are a BIG hot water user)
Cooking Electric here also, but INDUCTION, not resistance elements. Pricey unless you buy a broken unit on ebay and know how to fix them. If you have never tried cooking on an induction cooktop, you are missing a treat. INSTANT heating, faster than gas. INSTANT control. Best safety, no fear of letting the 4 YO grandkid do his own eggs, cannot get worse than a 1st degree burn from touching the stovetop. Best efficiency also. 3 microwave ovens, and a resistance heat oven for certain cakes, pies, etc. and large long term items.
I do have water circulating thru the fireplace for when we have a fire, which preheats the water to the water heater and can even heat the house if needed, but FP is not the main heating.
PS on heating: Son in Kent, WA has gas furnace, added on a heat pump 3 years ago, heating bill went down, never used gas furnace since, even when it hit the mid 20's last winter. They still have a gas water heater (4 kids).
Edited 7/20/2007 7:44 pm ET by junkhound
Well, I don't. I watched photovoltaic cost drop and efficiency rise until the early 80's, has not moved since, still NOT cost effective, is only with gov. subsidies or mandates (well, eff. has gone way up for 3x and 4X junction cells, but too costly for any but orbital/space applications) - concentrators with Rankine/Sterling cycles will likely be more cost effective for large scale. Was in a meeting Thursday with some large concerns discussing ways to get large scale solar down to $2.50 per watt, pretty hard to do, no hope of silicon or GaAs cells ever getting that low for homeowner use.
Wow I would like to know what y'all talked about at that meeting. What about SIGS cells? Or Miasole or NanoSolar? I think that just because right this very second its not financially feasable doesnt mean that its not going to be feasable in 5 years. They are going to pass the tax rebate bill and when that happens watch out everyone is going to start thinking seriously about putting solar on the roof.
The induction cooktops are interesting. Wow one burner can do 3.6kW what does one of those things take 40 amps at 230V??
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/
http://www.solarsystems.com.au/154MWVictorianProject.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719011151.htm
About the only thing cetain is change.
Yea those plastic panels are cool. I went to a conference on them a couple months ago (in lovely baltimore). Thing they don't tell you is that they UV degrade super fast and if they can get them to work they will only be for disposable applications.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
You can hedge your bet by using 2 systems, gas furnace with a high Hspf heat pump. How much land do you have, you could go geothermal heatpump. Always come down to budget. Good luck
Kevin
Yeah, I think a dual fuel scheme for heating may be the best insurance in a situation like this. Assuming you'll have central air anyway, go ahead and install the smallest high efficiency gas furnace that will handle the required AC tonnage, then install baseboard electric as well. Or just leave space for the gas furnace to be installed in the future.Be sure that the ventillation system is zoned.For stove, pull in both gas and electric lines to the range/cooktop location so either can be used. If solar water tempering is used, however, a small electric unit should be all you need to "finish" the hot water -- no need for gas.But I do get a sense that this is intended to be a "grow old" residence, and the simplicity and low maintenance of electric heating and water heating is a definite plus there.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
You don't think PG&E uses natural gas to generate electricity? Electric bills are going up as fast as gas, right? Natural gas is a lot cheaper for heating, water heaters and cooking. Look at the tag on a water heater for the annual heating costs. Since the systems are going in now, you can place them wherever you want, and protect them as well as you want. My gas bill is a fraction of my electric bill.
Re: solar panels- they aren't used for direct supply, they only charge the batteries. That said, battery technology is coming along and will only be better in the future, so solar power will become more viable as time progresses, unless the utilities become more involved and make it difficult.
"I don't even think that there will be any of it left in 20 yrs at any price."
A direct pipeline to Washington, D.C.?
highfigh,
you simply must stop thinking linearly. It's more complex than that!
Gas is used to generate electricitytrue! but it's not the only source for energy to generate electricity. You could use bio waste, or methane from landfills (it's currantly being done at SDP&E) wind power is catching on as well as potential other sources.. One of the greatest potential sources is wave & tide action used in a few locations already it offers a real power potential.
Coal is abundant here in the midwest and simply doesn't make economic sense out west due to the mountains. But coal gasification does offer some real potential..
all of those will put pressure on natural gas prices..
Don't point fingers at me- I can't use any of those examples. I live in a suburb of MKE and I can't do squat without raising someone's eyebrows. The landfills do collect methane but AFAIK, they use it only for some of the industrial clients in those immediate areas. Wave and tide will never be used here, in MKE. If we had a river like the Thames, sure, but we don't. I want them to use other sources but every time someone makes a recommendation, they say they need to explore it, sweep it under the rug and act like it never came up in conversation. The state government is loaded with crap and nobody does a damn thing about them. WE Energies is the problem. They're trying to put up a coal fired generator in Oak Creek and the homeowners sued to stop them, because of the soot and other effects of having them nearby, like lowered property values. The Public Service Commission let it go onward and now, the EPA has stopped the project because WE Energies didn't do a full environmental impact study. They already dumped over a billion into it and they'll just pass the cost on to us. We Energies was talking about selling the Point Beach Nuclear power plant for close to $1B, and immediately said they would need to raise their rates. Wisconsin Gas Co is not part of WE Energies. Guess who the biggest user of natural gas is, in Wisconsin. My electric bills have tripled in the last 7 years. I have my bills and don't use that much more than I did, if I actually do use more. This place has definitely lost its charm. I used to like living here but those days are gone. Too bad dropping everything and moving away isn't easier.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
highfigh,
It's so easy to quit and blame others. I understand you feelings.. I really do.. it's frustrating working with others, every other person has a differant priority than yours and seems to be an obstruction..
It would be nice to be boss of the world but the world doesn't work that way.. Imagine guys like Rupert Murdox. He's got more money than God but still can't get everything he wants.. He blames it on liberals and do gooders, but frankly the world just isn't ready to bow to his wishes any more than it's willing to bow to mine or yours..
The way you achieve something in this world is to first,
Show up! Attend the mettings where issues you are interested are dicussed and speak your mind.
second,
convince others of the validity of your position..
third,
Trade and neogotiate with others to achieve your goals.
That's what politicians are supposed to do. actaully that's what they do, but they listen to those who paid to get them elected, not to those who simply vote..
If you are rich hire others to be your politician, then you pretty much get what you want.. the middle class and upper middle class, lower middle class, and poor simply don't have much to say about what happens.. (unless they become the politician)
Part of the problem is that We Energies is the only game in town for most of the state, so they get what they want, every time. I'm not rich, so I really don't think my voice will be heard, although I have been talking about this problem with more people than ever. The energy situation is a mess, the politicians are doing very little about it and the environmentalists have a death grip on every tree and bird out there. We need to be able to exploit the wind and water far more than we are.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
highfigh,
Don't give the enviornmentalists too hard a time. They do us all a service.. If they didn't have a voice we'd be worse than China poluting our own farming land as well as lakes and rivers..
Their voice however is often blunted by those who have interests in energy production.. Minnesota has an extremely active enviornmentalist community. Yet we have an abundance of cheap electrical energy, so much so that we sell our power down into Des Moines Iowa, over into the Dakota's and as far away as Chicago.
So it's possible for the enviormental community and the energy producers to co-exist.. you might look at your state and see what the real issue is.. sometimes the environmentalists simply become easy targets for corruption or poor business practices..
I'm not giving them a hard time and I know they do some really good things but they need to realize that if we're going to reduce our use of oil and coal, we need windmill farms and we need to use the water flowing in rivers to generate more electricity. That will kill birds flying into the blades and impact the rivers. It's off of the point about Wisconsin but they're still trying to have the generators on the Colorado removed, starting with the Glen Canyon Dam. If they win on that one, Hoover will be next. I don't know how they propose to replace the lost electrical power buying it from Canada will be very expensive and unless more nuclear plants are built, the Midwest's capacity won't handle it. How is it that you have an overabundance of electricity and if you have a chance, can you post your charge/KWh for comparison?
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
The point should be made that those dams have relatively little to do with generating electricity and everything to do with controlling water supplies to support irrigation of otherwise-unusable cropland.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
They do both, as well as originally avoiding the flooding that was an annual occurrence. The water no longer reaches the Gulf of California, which it once did. California and Nevada get a bunch of electricity from Hoover. Hoover makes the power, the flow through Glen Canyon is modulated, based on need. Off peak, the river below the GC dam is about 6000-8000 ft³/second and on-peak, it's up to about 12000-15000 ft³/second. Lake Powell is about 60' down from peak levels and the water use softens the US need to import food/products. I don't know how much but there are cotton fields in Chandler, AZ. Golf courses use quite a bit, but PHX and Tucson get their drinking water from the Colorado, too.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
highfigh,
First it's really a myth that windmills cause a lot of bird deaths.. if they did the ground would be littered with dead birds. Second environmentalists can learn as well as you.. so suggest that someone from the Audubon society do a count of bird deaths and bird strikes around a windmill. (by the way windmills in Holland are considered tourist attractions and there isn't an issue of bird strikes with them).. Do you smell a little conspiracy issue here?
As to removing the hydro electric dams on the Colorado, or elsewhere a small vocal minority is attempting to do just that.. there is a valid issue here.. samon, which we depend on for a significant source of food haven't been able to get up some rivers to spawn due to dams.. slowly that issue is being addressed. It's a combination of the fishing industry and a few enviornmentalists who are bring the issue to the forefront. Can dams and fish co-exist, yes if a proper amount of thought and concern is used to address the issue.. It doesn't have to be an either or situation.. but the power companies are going to have to take the issue seriously rather than concern about this quarters earnings statements which is their main focus..
Why does Minnesota have an abundance of electric power. Simple, we are a progressive state.. We look to the future.. and deal with the future in a timely manner.
The twin Cites area grows by about 30,000 people per year.. we have to have the facilities in place today to deal with that growth 10 years from now.. if we do we will be an efficent city..
We have several big efficent coal fired power plants.. they were built because the powerplants worked with the enviormentalists to set up standards and control pollution.. We've put in scrubbers and cleaners and other equipment designed to minimise pollution and acid rain. Coal works for us because we are the closest major city to the coal mines in Montana..
In addition we have two major nuclear power plants that are well run and careful..
We also use waste to generate power because we've found a viable way to seperate out the recycles and pollution generating material..
The use of methane from garbage dumps was first developed here, The southern portion of Minnesota is a major wind belt and they are putting up wind generators faster than the power companies can put in the lines. We use hydro electric power when and where it is available.. (the Mississippi starts here in Minnesota and the twin cites still gets electricity from the falls.. Ford motor company has an assembly plant here that produces all it's own power plus much of the neighborhoods power.. there are two major hydro electric power plants here on the Mississippi.
My wife pays all the bills and I never see them, so I can't give you our KWH cost. except the last time I checked we were towards the bottom. I doubt that there is much sense in direct comparison anyway.. There is prime rate and discounted rate plus discounts for off peak usage. In addition I will be eligible for another discount once my in floor radiant heat becomes my sole source of heat (sometime this winter)
Purely for comparison our highest electric bill seldom exceeds $40.00 a month. That's during the summer A/C season while using all these power tools to turns rough sawn timbers and wood into a finished house.. IN addition I have a 5 hp pump that pulls lake water from the lake and I use it to water my lawn. I love it! two weeks from bare ground with seed spread to a lush lawn!
once construction is past and I won't need to water the lawn as extensively I expect my summer costs to be around $25.00 per month..
Frency -I don't have time to dig up the references right now, but a recent study I read indicated that while most large windmills kill about the same number of birds as large buildings, the windmills along Altamont pass in Central California do kill a fairly high number of raptors and it is on a flyway that means there are quite a few birds there. The study also indicated, however, that for some unknown reason, windmills do kill a higher rate of bats than might be expected from the number of birds killed. The study report speculated that somehow the bats might even be attracted to the windmill blades.
The most recent study done in England that I read said that the newer much larger and much slower rotating windmills kill much less birds than the smaller fast rotating altamont pass windmills. They actually have videos of birds flying down the rows of windmills easily dodging the vanes.
The kills lots of bats myth I believe was also debunked in this same study but since I don't have it right here in front of me I can't be sure.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
I need to bookmark these articles when I run across them...or copy them. But I can remember reading about a study that was looking at bird kills & wind turbines. IIRC, the conclusion was that yes, dead birds were found in the vacinity of turbines, but that less birds are killed by a large wind turbine than are killed by a highway overpass.
I believe the bird-kill scare was caused by the early turbines in Altamont? pass. Those rotated at a much higher speed.
But the current turbines have a hard time shaking off the bird-kill stigma from those early turbines. And I suspect it is in the interest of competing technologies to keep those stigmas alive and well.
jt8
"If you can't sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there and worrying. It's the worry that gets you, not the loss of sleep." -- Dale Carnegie
"....can you post your charge/KWh for comparison".
You will never get a verifiable fact out of Frenchy. Having had this conversation with him at least twice, finding and posting his acutal electrcal rates, which as I recall are about average at $0.085/kwh, the only responses you get will be filled with BS and lies. I don't know. I don't pay the bills. This has been an ongoing bs-athon for so long, that even Frenchy can't remember all the versions he's come up with.
Tim
You looked it up and your numbers seemed higher than what I pay but I don't know, you could be right. My monthy electric bills are trival.. while my monthly Natural gas bills were as high as $500.00 per month.
$500 a month?? I don't think we've ever had anything over $200, and this past (mild) winter, with a new furnace and more insulation, the gas bill was generally below $100.Our electric bills tend to run in the $80 range, IIRC; a bit higher in AC season, of course. Changing over to mostly CFL lighting and installing the new furnace made a substantial dent in our electric bill.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
DanH
I've stated those numbers for years..it's one of the main motivation to building this house with SIP's
To be fair $500 was for the month of December and January, by Febuary the bills were getting back around to $350 a month or so depending on the weather..
When I bought this house 22 years ago I checked out the insulation package completely. IT was great, far above normal levels.. perfect Vapor barrier envelope, fiberglas walls and celluiose ceiling..
That's why the high bills bothered me.. so much so that I replaced the furnace with a new High efficency one.I bought a programable set back thermostat. The bills remained high even when I burned cords of wood trying to reduce the gas bills.
My new home is 5000 feet or about twice the size of the old one.. plus it has twice as many windows, yet heating bills last winter even with the house not fully sealed up were at most $127 in the month of December with January slightly lower.. (same furnace)
Electric bills are trival in comparison.. about $40 a month is all and that's in spite of all the construction going on using gobs and gobs of power. (plus the irragation system which I use about an hour a day because of my new lawn) ..
Our home is a hair under 2000 sq ft, in the Rochester MN area. Built in 1976, by a builder who was sustantially less than exceptional. We've done a fair amount to tighten it up, resulting in, I'd guess, a reduction in air exchange rate of between 2x and 4x. But still unexceptional by "tight home" standards. We have a fireplace but haven't used it in probably 10 years.Just scanned some of our bills. Before switching to CFLs and the new furnace (with DC motor) our (non-AC) electric bills ran as high as $150. Since switching they're generally in the $80 range. Our gas bills before new furnace and insulation were $150-200 during the coldest months, afterwards were in the $80-100 range (though it was a mild winter).
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
If we use your numbers, based on the 2005 price of (average residential total cost) of electricity and natural gas in Minnesota and you tell me what makes sense.
$500/month gas bill at $11.2/cf = a monthly energy consumption of 440 therms ( a therm = 100,000 btu) which = 44 M(illion)btu = 12,883 kwh. In 2005, electricity in Minnesota (including your stated Zip code of 55391) was 8.28 c/kwh, about 30% less in the winter, so we'll say $0.058/kwh. At the rate you would have used gas to incur a $500 natural gas bill, your electric cost would have been $747.20 or if all due to the use of gas appliances that were 65% efficient, an equivalent elctric bill of $485.
Now based on relatively conservative numbers for the costs, and your stated level of usage, either I would have to conclude that you have improved the energy efficiency of your home 40-fold (pretty unlikely, SIPs or not), you are a complete idiot and these numbers simply make your eyes glaze over, or you're making up "facts" as yout type.
Should you wish to get a clue about the actual electrical energy situation in the forward, progressive state that elected Jesse Ventura to the Governors mansion, then check out http://web.mit.edu/mit_energy/resources/factsheets/MnElectricityFactSheet.pdf
Your electric supplier, if you live where you claim is, BTW, Xcel Energy, and they have no rate reductions like you also made up.
Edited 7/26/2007 6:01 pm by Tim
Tim,
Several factors which if you read everything I've posted somewhat explains the costs. First my original home while well insulated, was insulated with fiberglas in the walls and celluliose in the ceiling.. One thing you should know about insulation ratings.. they are all done in a labratory at 70 degrees under controlled conditions..
Both celluliose and fiberglas lose R ratings dramatically as moisture is increased.. I live right on Lake Minnetonka, The fall tends to be a humid time and that humidity gets into the attic thru vents etc. under the eves.. effectively (in the case of my home) negating the insulation.. in the middle of the winter I could open up my attic and see frost on the underside of my roof.. With the lower R value of wet celluliose most of the heat would escape and cause that frost to melt making the celluliose even worse.. because of the excellant vapor barrier installed no moisture would leak into the house but certainly not keeping the heat I paid for in the house.
The new SIPs aren't affected by moisture. thus I now have insulation rather than soggy shredded paper.. and wet fiberglas.. Further I have R 50 on the ceilings and R30 in the walls.. with no studs every sixteen inches to decrease real world ratings.
IN addition instead of concrete block foundation I have ICF's I won't enter the debate about thermal mass etc. of ICF's except to say that they must be more energy efficent than hollow core concrete block..
Bottom line? I went from virtually no insulation to super insulation.. 40 fold increase? Well I don't know, I do know that my energy costs last year with the same furnace I had previously my costs went from $500+ to $127.00 per month during December and January.. That in spite of the house not finished or completely sealed.
My electric costs are real, If someone stops out here I will show them my electric bills. Please give my wife a days notice so she can dig them out for me..
Our house has standard 3" FG in the walls and cells in the ceiling. If we'd been paying $500 heating bills we wouldn't have been able to put the kids through college.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
DanH
Well now you know why I removed the fiberglas and celluliose insulation and replaced it with SIP's Was your fiberglas wet? Did your ceiling get soaked every fall and stay wet all winter? It wasn't leaking roof. I replaced the shingles thinking that might have been it. When the attic still got damp in the late fall I looked carefully for any leaks during rain storms, and never found a drop that leaked in.
There was an excellant vapor barrier, I carefully checked it as I tore down the house looking for signs of interior vapor leaking into the ceiling. Never saw a rip or tear or missed area anyplace. Seams were well taped . Not thru the roof nor vapor from the house, the only place any moisture could have entered my house was thru the gable end vents and soffit vents.. but appearently that was enough to cause the problems..
When I first saw the heating bills were that high I crawled up and put another 10" layer of fiberglas bats on top of the celluliose. which did exactly nothing..
I spoke with my neighbors and most had similar heating bills during those months..
However my sister who at the time didn't live on the Lake had relatively tiny ones..
I never had noticeable attic moisture problems. We have a few stains in the ceiling, but they're all due to known roof leaks (since fixed, of course).And in our case there was/is no actual vapor barrier in the ceiling, and only the kraft facing of the FG in the walls.Of course, we don't live on a lake, but it's not clear why that would make much difference.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
DanH
I suspect, but am not sure, that the humidity of the lake dampens the insulation.. damp insulation seems to be a self compounding problem. I took rather extreme efforts to check for leaks* or find a source of of moisture and never found it..
The ironic thing is that all thru the summer the attic was dry as a popcorn fart, even heavy downpours showed no sign of leakage.. The first sign of a problem occured after the first heavy freeze.
* one attempt to find it I taped toilet paper on most of the joists thinking if rain was leaking in that would be an excellant telltale..
no signs right up untill freeze up but the first snow fall all the toilet paper was stuck like it had been sprayed with water..
"no signs right up untill freeze up but the first snow fall all the toilet paper was stuck like it had been sprayed with water.."Warm moist air enfiltration form the conditioned space condensing on the, really, cold rafters.SamT
SamT
I suspect that the insulation was able to retain moisture due to relatively high humidity prior to heavy freeze up.. that humidity could enter the attic spaces thru soffit vents and gable vents..
The moisture reduces the effective R value of insulation so additional heat escapes keeping the insulation from freezing compounding the problem..
The excellant vapor barrier prevented the moisture from inside the house from escaping.. so it was exterior moisture which was responsible..
But "relatively high humidity" in a small volume of stagnant air wouldn't cause that much condensation. Something was pumping humidity into there, I suspect.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
DanH
I'm darned if I know what it was.. the fact that neighbors with similar sized homes paid similar heating bills is a clue. If you come around the lake you'll find oversized heating units or multiple heating units seems to be extremely common..
Those same neighbors who have torn down and rebuilt their houses with sprayed in foam report similar type savings, while one neighbor who uses fiberglas insulation still compains about his heating bills..
I know I seem stubborn about how good the vapor barrier was, but you should have seen it as I tore down the house.. I honestly never saw a single point where it was flawed.. usually there will be an indicator, dirt and dust streaks or rotted wood etc.. to give away where the interior moisture could have leaked out..
Plus in spite of damp insulation virtually all winter there never was a drop that leaked past and made any of the traditional leakage marks in the ceiling..
You yourself report moderate heating bills during the winter in spite of a similar degree of insulation.. so it's not a minnesota thing.. My sister too had a home as large as my old one was and her bills were a fraction of mine..
Her new home on the lake also has sprayed in foam..
Is it likely that the similar homes with similar problems were built by the same builder? Several of us in our neighborhood used to get together and swap stories about the things our builder screwed up.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
DanH
All homes on Lake Minnetonka are custom built.. My old house for example was built by ? whenever the prior owner got a significant tax return.. (and not built very well either)..
Most homes started as relatively modest cabins and were added to over the decades..
Custom built doesn't imply different builders. It would be quite normal to use the same builder as your neighbor.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
(I suppose if you have a home on Minnetonka you can afford $500 heating bills.)
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
DanH
$500 a month was in my neighborhood.. If you go to the really spendy neighborhoods on the lake, where homes average 20-30 million plus. They had some really high heating bills.. Not uncommon for those homes to have three or four big furnaces.
You can't believe there is that much money in the world, some of these people have homes that size on Lake Minnetonka, a larger home down in Florida in Palm Beach, and a home In La Jolla California, and a penthouse in New York.. total value of their personal realestate can be well in excess of $100 million!
Part that bugs me is that even with wet insulation you shouldn't have had heating bills that high. I think there must have been some sort of bypass, possibly ductwork directly blowing hot air into the attic.How was humidity inside the old house? Did you run a humidifier much?
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
DanH
No ductwork went into the attic..
I did run a humidifier for a few years winter here is a very dry time.. however when I discovered the frost in the attic (about the third year) I stopped that practice and was carefull about humidity.. I kept things so dry a full glass of water would evaporate in 10 minutes.. ;-)
Ductwork doesn't have to go INTO the attic for it to blow air into the attic. Just requires that a few stud cavities be used for ducts.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
DanH
The closest duck didn't come within 7 feet of the attic.. Cold air returns which could also leak into the attic didn't come within 8 feet of the attic..
I'm cheap, I saved every single bit of ductwork because I knew I was going to reuse it as my back up heating source. Why throw away a $7 or $9 piece of ductwork only to have to buy it back a little while later?
So I know where every duct was and went to.. While it's true the ductwork wasn't sealed by tape as is the currant method, the ductwork was pretty tight and well secured..
That's what doesn't make sense. Once it cools off the attic is going to inevitably be warmer (for most of the day) than the surrounding air, resulting in a lower relative humidity in the attic and reduced tendency for outside moisture to condense.It seems to me that the moisture must have been coming from inside the house, or perhaps from combustion gasses that were drawn into the attic.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
DanH
It had an excellent vapor barrier that I confirmed myself as I tore down the old house.
Combustion gases? I don't know how, there was no sign of any such a problem on the chimney.. it had three separate flues encased in two clay liners in a brick chimney.
I had the gas company check annually for carbon Monoxide They were pretty through.
Re: solar panels- they aren't used for direct supply, they only charge the batteries. That said, battery technology is coming along and will only be better in the future, so solar power will become more viable as time progresses, unless the utilities become more involved and make it difficult.
You just need an inverter and you can feed directly off the PV's. Or feed it back to your utility company and make your meter spin backwards (assuming you're producing more than you're using). In states with net metering, they actually have to credit you the same kw price they would charge you.
But the per/kw price isn't affordable without hefty govt support.
jt8
"If you can't sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there and worrying. It's the worry that gets you, not the loss of sleep." -- Dale Carnegie
If you have enough panels, you may be able to do that but they still need an invertor to supply AC, whether it's to the building or utility. The output from most panels is still kind of weak, unless they're ganged and/or there are plenty of them. I do know someone who went solar close to 20 years ago. I'll see if I can get him into this thread.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Right I know that PG&E has a lot of gas fired electricity plants and as NG prices go up I'm sure that my rates will too. I'm also saying that the price and efficency of solar panel systems is going to come way down in the next ten years. Lets say that I have a solar panel system installed on the roof of my place and it provides almost all of my electricity needs (averaged out over the year) in this all electric house then I don't really care how ridiculously high the rates are cause I'm not really paying them.
That's the entire point of this, besides having my own bio-reactor on site to make gas, I can't make NG but I can easily make electricity.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
madmadscientist,
I'm in a somewhat differant situation than you are.. I live where extreme cold is normal yet I found out that with the currant electric costs a well engineered system I could heat my house with electricity for slightly less than what my gas bill had been..
Minnesota is in a high wind area and as windmills come on line that will put even greater price pressure on lowering electric costs, not to mention solar power possiblitites.
I see no such pressure on NG
What I am using is an electric water heater to provide in floor radiant heat. By my calculations it should provide adequite heat down to 30 below. Last year proved the relative themal efficency of the insulation package. This year I expect it to prove my theory.
All electric? yes!
Wow, I'm not sure yet how well I will be able to insulate this 100+yr old Victorian but I am hoping that with intelligent spray foam application I can get pretty decent results. Though I know that I'm not going to change the windows out-so maybe exterior storms and insulated curtains.
It seems like its all going to come down to a well engineered system, here's hoping that I can find a local pro to figure that out for me. Though I gotta say I think living in a mild climate makes the HVAC contractors lazy-cause no matter how bad they do an install its still gonna heat the house when the coldest it gets out is 40 deg.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Interesting thread.
I'm thinking that its perhaps not what energy you use, but how much. I think I would focous on energy effiecientcy. This may be challenging as your doing a remodel, but well worth it in the long run.
Whatever happens, as long as you use less, it can't be that bad............can it?
Right we are going to go as efficent as possible in this 100yr old Vic. All the big appliances are energy star rated. In our last un-insulated 100+yr old vic I had a 95% eff condensing gas furnace installed and it heated the place great without super high bills.
Then hopefully I can get all (averaged over the year) of my electricity from a grid tied solar panel array on the roof.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
I took a look at your design temp and saw 35degree winter dry bulb. I know you live in a mild climate, but you can't design for mild temperatures. You've always got to plan for worst case. If cost is your concern and a ground source heat pump is out of your relm, I would do an optimizer system. That's a 90% furnace with a heat pump. This way you have full control over gas or electric at a relatively low increase in up front costs (given that you have ductwork distributed).
Here's the brief rundown of how/why optimizer.
An air source heat pump is 3 times more efficient than electric at 47 degrees. It is about equal in effiecency when it is around 30 degrees outside. This is not a liner scale, but pretty close, so for this discussion, we'll assume linear. A 90% furnace is around 2 times more efficient no matter what the temp outside. So, you draw both efficiencies on the chart and choose the best time to activate your furnace and deactivate your heat pump. This all happens inside the thermostat (as long as you get one that can handle this function). This is usually around 40 degrees.
(these efficiency comparisons of NG vs. electricity are based costs in my neck of the woods in Washington, the comparison would need to be altered if your power or fuel costs are much different than what I see up here)
This system will always be more efficient than electric heating and gives you the ability to choose at your convenience which type of fuel you want to use.
One technology that hasn't been mentioned is the hydrogen fuel cell. A company named Ballard has deveoped a residential unit to produce both electicity and hot water. It uses NG as a fuel source and is in use in Japan since 2005.
A technology that is still in its infancy, but certainly intersesting due to its simplicity.
One technology that hasn't been mentioned is the hydrogen fuel cell. A company named Ballard has deveoped a residential unit to produce both electicity and hot water. It uses NG as a fuel source and is in use in Japan since 2005.Does the fuel cell produce more electricity from the hydrogen than would be produced by a generator burning the NG? It seems that the big drawback to hydrogen fuel cells is the need to produce the hydrogen. Apparently the h2o bonds are so strong that using electricity, produced by a residential wind mill or solar array, to make hydrogen from water is very inefficient. I hope hydrogen fuel cells don't turn out to be one of those technologies that are always on the horizon but never materialize. Some of us of a certain age remember the predictions that small nuclear plants would be found in every home, producing electricity "too cheap to meter."
Some fuel cells can accept natural gas (or, say, butane) directly. Others incorporate catalysts and membranes and such that allow the direct separation of the hydrogen from the gas. One unit that's looking fairly attractive for powering cellphones and the like starts with alcohol.The unit that's described makes use of waste heat to heat water, one way to improve the net efficiency of the system.But your point is well-taken, and it's one reason why most folks serious about alternative energy(*) are not investing that much mental energy in hydrogen -- hydrogen requires substantial energy to produce, resulting in a fairly high front-end energy loss that is hard to recover regardless of the efficiencies farther down the "food chain".(*) Of course, this group doesn't include W. Hydrogen is a preferred "alternative" of the oil companies since they understand it and believe they can profit from it.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
One unit that's looking fairly attractive for powering cellphones and the like starts with alcohol.
So I can drop my phone into my glass of Guiness to recharge it? Brilliant!
92602.81 in reply to 92602.80
One unit that's looking fairly attractive for powering cellphones and the like starts with alcohol.
So I can drop my phone into my glass of Guiness to recharge it? Brilliant!
There's a better solution - at LLBean, they sell a radio (made by Eton), which is powered by a handcrank - wind it for 1 minute, you can listen to the radio for 30 minutes. It also includes a plug and adapters for a bunch of different cell phones, so you can charge your phone by a hand crank.
The new "$100 computer" (which actually is about $185 right now) will have a crank (or more probably a sort of pull cord) for recharging.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
One technology that hasn't been mentioned is the hydrogen fuel cell.
They need to improve the method for obtaining the hydrogen, because currently the power they use to split the water is greater than what it would take to just charge a battery pack and run the car off of that. And whereas your fuel cost might be comparable whether you're charging the batteries or pumping in the gasoline, the fuel cell fuel is more expensive than the other two.
And as far as I know, most of the fuel cells cars have limited range (100miles or so?). And unlike an electric car, you can't charge your fuel cell at home or work. Only at a gas station with specially installed equipment.
Just seems like it would be easier to install quick-charge units at a gas station than it would be to put in the infastructure for hydrogen. Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.
I like the biodiesel and ethinol and think they should be expanded, but those two technologies would never be able to replace regular gas.jt8
"If you can't sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there and worrying. It's the worry that gets you, not the loss of sleep." -- Dale Carnegie
Since it's a Victorian,
-build for today, plan for the future.
-do your heat loss calcs first.
-insulate and seal all spaces that will be inaccessible.
-wire for electric where you have gas today, provide for future solar electric.
-radiant heating: gas condensing boiler, indirect water heater, single temperature system
(pex tubing in concrete floors/transfer plates under wood floors).
If it were me, I'd use the gas now and wire for the future. Put a few home runs in boxes; water-heater, dryer, range circuits etc, and then give yourself a few dedicated home runs 20A recepts in places with nice bid framing cavities so you could swap out the box for a can heater if need be at a later date, just leave enough room in the panel that you could pull a 120 and put in a 220, and you're set. Also, heat all the tile floors you can, just because its easy to do now, it adds a little electric heat to the house (not enough to be your sole source) and its the user-friendliest feature you can add in a remodel.
-duke
Yea i think that this is what we are going to do unless I can find a qualified person to install the ground-source heat pump. Digging that hole in a mature landscaped backyard is going to be a lot harder than doing it now when there is nothing there but dirt.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Have you checked with your power company to see if they have any incentives for going electric?
We can get a rebate of a few hundred when we install an electric water heater. We get "off peak" rates ( less than half price ) during the nights and more in winter if we install an electric thermal storage heater. We also get good quality electric appliances with a rebate and various other incentives to go electric. We did it (built new three years ago) and it works for us.
If you aren't familiar with an "ETS" heater, it heats ceramic bricks in a techno insulated box during the off peak hours then blows it out when you need it. It's completely computerized to know the outdoor temperature and calculate the heat that will be needed. You can get these units as a furnace or as a sort of radiator to heat a room. Google it, of course. We know several people around here who have and like them.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
~ Voltaire
If you want/need AC, this seems like a no-brainer to me. You can get an air-source heat pump for a very small premium over an air conditioner, and you will get heat that is cheaper than gas.
Ground-source heat pumps are very nice for places that have real winters, but the air-source one will work great for you, and you won't have to pay the premium to do the ground-source one.
There are some online calculators you can look at that will do the comparison for you based on gas and electricity prices.
In some areas using a pool to feed a water source heat pump is also economical. Pretty much "free" vs having to bury water coils.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin