Roadmap 2045 – Part 4

By Rud Istvan, – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Here are links to Part 1Part 2,   Part3~ctm

This is the fourth of 6 posts dissecting SoCalEd plan for a carbon neutral service territory by 2045. It is a straightforward plan to electrify 70% of buildings. Why 70%? Because electrifying pre-existing commercial buildings beyond lighting and AC is virtually impossible.

The following SoCalEd image makes this reasonably clear.

clip_image002

70% electric space and water heating

90% fewer GHG from all electric homes

15% increase in electrical load

70% space and water heating

As with electrified vehicles (part 3), this is putting the economic burden on the homeowner, not SoCalEd. There are two cost components: capital and operating.

Switching a typical gas furnace to an electric equivalent costs about $2000, and switching a typical tank capacity hot water heater is about $400. Installation of both and upgrading the electrical service panel for the requisite more amps is about $600. (All per California home improvement sites and quote ranges.) So the total homeowner initial capital cost is about $3000. Not as bad as an electric car.

The bigger problem is the difference in operating cost. For this I went to state-by-state utility bill comparisons at the US EIA. The average California electric bill is about $100 (exactly $101.49 in 2018, higher in summer because of AC, lower in winter). The average gas bill is about $60, higher in winter with heating, lower in summer with just hot water and cooking. So that is a California difference of about $40/month or $480/year, all of which becomes additional SoCalEd revenue with a guaranteed profit.

90% less GHG from all electric homes

This is only true if the electricity comes from nuclear or renewables. If it comes from about 60% efficient CCGT, then GHG are about 40% more using electricity from natural gas rather than just natural gas for space and water heating.

15% increase in load

That is SoCalEd’s estimate. Could not figure a way to triangulate it so lets assume it is true based on their granular customer base. At least they were honest here about the additional load impact on their grid from fully electrifying homes.

BUT as part three showed, they OMITTED this same increased load estimate from vehicle electrification. And that omitted ‘detail’ is not +15%, its at least 100%– DOUBLE– and mostly at night when solar isn’t contributing to SoCalEd load capacity.

CONTINUE READING –>

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s