Carbon Wars: The New EPA Rules to Reduce Carbon Emissions at U.S. Power Plants

[nwdiver]

Is "abandoning" the attic an option? If not then this might be your only option...

http://www.sprayfoamkit.com/land/ki...4ogwPkWjvycHtv2CzkhnhGDy9jdnBb-KL4ty5SGzw_wcB

then dense pack your walls with cellulose.

 

[Jeff Miller]

There's only 3/4 of an inch of airspace between the brick (3 courses) and the lath so there's not much I can do for the walls unfortunately, other than building them out from the inside as David.Cary suggested, which would be a huge project that I'm not really excited about undertaking. I'll check out the foam.

 

[nwdiver]

There's only 3/4 of an inch of airspace between the brick (3 courses) and the lath so there's not much I can do for the walls unfortunately, other than building them out from the inside as David.Cary suggested, which would be a huge project that I'm not really excited about undertaking. I'll check out the foam.

When I say "inside" the walls... I mean "inside" the walls

Not the gap between the outside of the wall and the inside of the bricks...

 

[Robert.Boston]

Shall we return to the original topic now? Thanks.

 

[Jeff Miller]

At least in old masonry structures like ours, there is no "inside" on the exterior walls of the house, like there is for example between the studs of a newer home. There are several layers of brick (3 in our case), furring on which to nail the lath + a thin air gap, and then the lath and plaster. This isn't a great photo, but what you see on the right wall in the picture gives you an idea. The thickness of the furring varies to make the interior walls plumb, but mostly was an inch or so in the rooms I've remodeled. That's the only place the insulation can go, and with an R value of 3.5 per inch for cellulose, I'm not sure putting an inch in is worth the trouble.

We don't use the attic in the winter, so it's not heated. I don't want to seal it off permanently though - it's a useful space.

(Yes, sorry, let's return to the original topic!)

 

[nwdiver]

Well, it was a bit of a tangent but Jeffs predicament does highlight a very important point that is often overlooked. The most cost-effective way to reduce our carbon emissions isn't nuclear, solar or wind but efficiency. My sister recently purchased a home built in ~2012 that is heated with propane and was infested with incandescent bulbs. Yesterday we cleared out the incans with $200 worth of CREE LEDs and plan to replace the propane furnace with a 3 ton LG heat pump and the propane water heater with a GE Geospring heat pump hot water heater. Hopefully next year they can round it out with a ~10kW solar array but $/$ this years non-solar PV improvements are 2-5x as effective.

I slashed my power bill in Bremerton, WA from ~$2500/yr to <$100/yr

LED/CFL lighting ~$250
Added 12" of cellulose to attic ~$400
New Windows ~$4k
GE Geospring water heater ~$1k
Power Pipe Drain Heat Recovery ~$1k
HSPF 9 Heat pumps ~$4k
Total: $10650

8.4kW Solar Array ~$26k

The improvements BEFORE the Solar array were cheaper and SAVE more energy than the solar array produces. The cellulose I added for $400 was the most cost-effective improvement BY FAR.

Maybe we need a new thread on saving energy :redface:

 

[David_Cary]

Half on topic. Does the EPA regulatory requirements allow credit for efficiency programs? I kind of thought they did.

In NC, our led bulbs are $5 which is partly paid for by Duke Progress Energy (how much I have no idea, there is just a sticker on the price at HD/Lowes).

While it is a great idea, you have fools like me who at $5 find all sorts of uses for them when the payback is under a decade. While that isn't bad, they probably would get credit for "average" use - not my garage door opener lights.

Subsidizing LED bulbs is probably one of the cheaper ways to reduce carbon. And then things like subsidizing solar projects. Duke/Progress paid me $500 for my solar hot water heater and $1 per KW on my solar PV. They also give me 5% off for life by building Energy Star certified. Needless to say, I won't have paid back all the subsidies they have give me for about 10 years at my current usage.

But wouldn't a carbon tax - revenue neutral of course - lead to a much better set of incentives?

 

[nwdiver]

$1 per KW on my solar PV.

I hope you mean $1/w. Spending $25k on a 10kW array and getting a $10 rebate would be a joke... or did you mean $1/kWh because getting ~$15k/yr would be AWESOME:biggrin:

 

[Jeff Miller]

I slashed my power bill in Bremerton, WA from ~$2500/yr to <$100/yr

Maybe we need a new thread on saving energy :redface:

Wow- that's an incredible reduction!

I like the idea of a separate thread on efficiency.

 

[David_Cary]

Yeah, $1/W - one time- So a 10kW array gets a $10k rebate (since reduced)

 

[Robert.Boston]

Half on topic. Does the EPA regulatory requirements allow credit for efficiency programs? I kind of thought they did.

In NC, our led bulbs are $5 which is partly paid for by Duke Progress Energy (how much I have no idea, there is just a sticker on the price at HD/Lowes).

While it is a great idea, you have fools like me who at $5 find all sorts of uses for them when the payback is under a decade. While that isn't bad, they probably would get credit for "average" use - not my garage door opener lights.

Subsidizing LED bulbs is probably one of the cheaper ways to reduce carbon. And then things like subsidizing solar projects. Duke/Progress paid me $500 for my solar hot water heater and $1 per KW on my solar PV. They also give me 5% off for life by building Energy Star certified. Needless to say, I won't have paid back all the subsidies they have give me for about 10 years at my current usage.

But wouldn't a carbon tax - revenue neutral of course - lead to a much better set of incentives?

Yes, the EPA regs give full credit for energy efficiency programs that affect the electric grid. Unfortunately, it doesn't look at areas like home heating improvements (either through equipment upgrades or insulation) unless your home is heated with electricity. This example shows exactly why the regs are really only a half-way measure. Unfortunately, it's all that the executive can do without Congress.

 

[GlennAlanBerry]

Energy efficiency and conservation is very much related to this topic. Getting an energy audit (which many utility companies subsidize), and then making the most high priority improvements (which are usually improving air sealing, adding insulation, and replacing incandescent light bulbs) should be the first step that people take to reduce their energy usage, save money and reduce their carbon footprint.

Even for climate change deniers, the simple idea of saving money on their utility bills should make sense.

 

[3mp_kwh]

After reading your remarks, I went back and looked more carefully at the EPA proposal. It is a long repetitive, somewhat confusing document, but I believe it boils down to the following.

First, it's important to distinguish two things: how the EPA comes up with their goal for each state, and how each state can achieve their goal.

1. How the EPA comes up with the goal.

In a nutshell, I think they do this:

a) add up all the CO2 emissions in pounds from the electrical sector in each state
b) add up all fossil fuel generated electrical energy from the state
c) take the ratio of a) to b)

That's the starting point.

They then do the following calculation to determine what each state's goal should be.

a) assume that the existing coal plants in the state are made ~5% more efficient (reduces the numerator)
b) assume that existing natural gas combined cycle plants are used at a much higher rate (~70%) than they are now in lieu of coal (reduces the numerator)
c) assume that the 6% of nukes that the EPA figures are due to be retired are not retired. Assume the 5 new nukes that are being built now are finished. Both these energy generation terms are added to the denominator. Assume that new renewables - wind and solar - are built each each from 2020 to 2030 at a rate which the EPA thinks is feasible and add the energy generated from these to the denominator.
d) assume the state implements an energy efficiency program and add the cumulative energy savings (1.5% per year) to the denominator.

The ratio calculated in this way is the goal expressed in terms of CO2 intensity - lbs/MWH.

The state then has a choice of trying to meet the intensity (lbs/MWH) goal, or the equivalent goal of a fixed emission in pounds.

2. How the state achieves its goal. The document repeatedly emphasizes that the EPA is not dictating to the states how they should meet the goal. All they care about is that the state has a credible, enforceable plan which meets the goal. So if a state comes back and says they are going to meet their goal by in part building new nukes, the EPA would be fine with that. They say this very explicitly on page 39:

"States may also identify technologies or strategies that are not explicitly mentioned in any of the four building blocks [basically points a,b,c,d above] and may use those technologies or strategies as part of their overall plans (e.g., market based trading programs or construction of new natural [gas] combined cycle units or nuclear plants).

Thanks, Jeff. I had a longer post, that this text editor ate. I'm copying page 41:

"A multi-state approach incorporating either a rate- or mass- based goal would also be approvable based upon a demonstration that the state's plan would achieve the equivalent in stringency, including compliance timing, to the state-specific rate-based goal set by the EPA."

I see better how the states can play with defining their own rate-based method. It is now down to when they band togather (ie. RGGI) that perhaps the problem lurks. I am with you, on this being "unambitious". the rotation to natural gas is a <$.005 / kwh event, for most, and it will leave our 2Gt sector emitting up to 1.6Gt, in 2030.

 

[tigerade]

House GOP could shut down gov't again over EPA rules:

House GOP Plots Sneak Attack On Obama's Climate Change Regs

 

[Robert.Boston]

@tigerade: maybe, but with a 7-2 majority ruling today by SCOTUS, the EPA has wind in its sails. Coal mining is a tiny employer these days; the coal mining executives have largely replaced labor with capital. Sure, the Dems may lose WV and Montana, but there are more states where wind and solar are growing industries employing thousands.