The report would be better, but longer, if it considered local distribution infrastructure in addition to transmission and generation. There are significant costs in transformers, substations, service lines, meters, etc. that should be considered.
However, adoption of GHP may require new infrastructure to handle increased winter peak dema…
The report would be better, but longer, if it considered local distribution infrastructure in addition to transmission and generation. There are significant costs in transformers, substations, service lines, meters, etc. that should be considered.
However, adoption of GHP may require new infrastructure to handle increased winter peak demand, the infrastructure requirement to support any other form of electric heat (electric resistance, or air-source heat pumps) would be much greater. GHPs use grid-provided electrical energy much more efficiently than the alternatives. (i.e. if a GHP operates at COP = 4, then 3 units of renewable, site-sourced heat are harvested and delivered to the home for every 1 unit of grid energy consumed.) Also, unlike air-source systems whose efficiency is very dependent on outside air temperature, GHP system efficiency is largely independent of outside air temperature. Air-source systems are dramatically less efficient than normal on the coldest and hottest days of the year -- which are precisely the times when we need the most efficient systems to be running.
There are a lot of variations on how HPs will affect the local distribution network, not all bad. In the SE, a lot of homes now have crappy ASHPs with resistance heat backup, causing winter peaks. Replacing these with ccASHPs w/o strip heat will reduce winter peaks. In many mixed climates, the winter peak from replacing gas with ccASHPs will be close to or smaller than the current summer AC peak.
In cold places, where AC is not common, HPs will increase the building, distribution and system peaks. Assuming some rational pricing and policies, various DER and VPP and efficiency strategies and some GSHPs will be used to minimize the associated cost. Maybe distribution upgrades are needed, maybe not. An excellent recent post from Canary covers how peak load minimization is being done on the micro level to electrify homes w/o increasing panel size. Lots of work in the PNW on aspects of this.
Is the baseline electric resistance heating (e.g. trivially decarbonized grid and consumption)? I can't on my own, decode "...building sector energy consumption is consistent with Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2022 projections, and the CO2 emission policy remains the same as existing state policies, including renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards, and CO2 emissions policies." but think of today's energy mix rather than some not yet realized usage mix as a baseline scenario. Since different states have different policies at the end of the day, this reads like the anything goes current state.
Against resistance heating, sure GHPs are going to look amazing in nearly every dimension (renters, for instance, aren't going to have a solo GHP option). This choice really begs the question.
The report would be better, but longer, if it considered local distribution infrastructure in addition to transmission and generation. There are significant costs in transformers, substations, service lines, meters, etc. that should be considered.
However, adoption of GHP may require new infrastructure to handle increased winter peak demand, the infrastructure requirement to support any other form of electric heat (electric resistance, or air-source heat pumps) would be much greater. GHPs use grid-provided electrical energy much more efficiently than the alternatives. (i.e. if a GHP operates at COP = 4, then 3 units of renewable, site-sourced heat are harvested and delivered to the home for every 1 unit of grid energy consumed.) Also, unlike air-source systems whose efficiency is very dependent on outside air temperature, GHP system efficiency is largely independent of outside air temperature. Air-source systems are dramatically less efficient than normal on the coldest and hottest days of the year -- which are precisely the times when we need the most efficient systems to be running.
There are a lot of variations on how HPs will affect the local distribution network, not all bad. In the SE, a lot of homes now have crappy ASHPs with resistance heat backup, causing winter peaks. Replacing these with ccASHPs w/o strip heat will reduce winter peaks. In many mixed climates, the winter peak from replacing gas with ccASHPs will be close to or smaller than the current summer AC peak.
In cold places, where AC is not common, HPs will increase the building, distribution and system peaks. Assuming some rational pricing and policies, various DER and VPP and efficiency strategies and some GSHPs will be used to minimize the associated cost. Maybe distribution upgrades are needed, maybe not. An excellent recent post from Canary covers how peak load minimization is being done on the micro level to electrify homes w/o increasing panel size. Lots of work in the PNW on aspects of this.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/electrification/yes-its-possible-to-electrify-a-home-on-just-100-amps
Over and out!
Is the baseline electric resistance heating (e.g. trivially decarbonized grid and consumption)? I can't on my own, decode "...building sector energy consumption is consistent with Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2022 projections, and the CO2 emission policy remains the same as existing state policies, including renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards, and CO2 emissions policies." but think of today's energy mix rather than some not yet realized usage mix as a baseline scenario. Since different states have different policies at the end of the day, this reads like the anything goes current state.
Against resistance heating, sure GHPs are going to look amazing in nearly every dimension (renters, for instance, aren't going to have a solo GHP option). This choice really begs the question.