Last episode, you discussed utility incentives. What I don’t understand is: why aren’t utilities doing everything they can to build renewables? If they earn a rate of return off capital, renewables are all capex and should build utility capital bases faster than more gas (which has all variable costs/fuel costs billed to ratepayers at cost). 10GW of renewables + storage is guaranteed to earn more profit for utilities than a similar quantity of gas, so why aren’t utilities favoring renewables?
Well, the utilities earn a rate of return on the absolute COST of their capex, right? And the "problem" (within this system of regulation) is that renewables are pretty cheap to install (even if they're even cheaper to operate). So even if renewables are all capex while gas additionally incurs fuel costs, then if you need some fixed quantity of new power capacity, it might still be cheaper to install a bunch of solar panels than to build a huge fossil fuel plant? The relevant base quantity seems to me to be the *absolute* cost of capex per unit of power generation, not the *percentage* of the total cost of power generation that goes to capex.
Thought you might want to look into something else happening in New York State. I don't think it's been publicized yet, but we are one of the first states to roll out the IRA incentives that allow low and moderate income folks to get point-of-sale rebates for various household electrification and energy efficiency things. My family qualifies as moderate income, so I've been waiting for this since the bill passed. We do not have air conditioning in our home. The increasingly hot summers combined with poor air quality have made this a top priority for us and heat pumps are obviously the way to do it. I've now learned from two contractors that the IRA incentives are rolling out this month and NYS has made any fossil gas home ineligible. Apparently the feds are going along - or maybe it was their idea? It would be interesting to learn more about this. Is this a common sense way to ensure the incentives go to the houses that will see the biggest payoff, both in terms of carbon emissions and financial rewards? Those who use heating oil or electric resistance heating probably should convert to heat pumps first. On the other hand, why must it be an either/or proposition? Is this another example of NYS bending over backwards to appease the fossil gas industry? Will other states now use up all the IRA money allocated for this before NYS gets the chance to spend its fair share? (My guess is that fossil gas is the predominant mode of residential heating in NYS.) And why not provide incentives to encourage heat pump air conditioners instead of the older, inefficient kind? Can you tell I'm grumpy about this?
Not sure which "contractors" are telling you this. If you want to get on the program, you need to sign up for an "energy audit" first. Of course, more green tape, particularly if someone is going to roll a truck, look at you home, do a whole report and tell you that the thing that makes the biggest difference isn't funded. But pretty easy to just sign up.
"For homes that heat with oil, propane, coal, electrical resistance, kerosene, pellets, and wood the project does not have to pass a total project savings for approval.
For homes heating with natural gas, the existing equipment must be 80% efficient or below and the project should show a net utility bill savings of 10% or greater for approval."
The "80% efficient or below," assuming "efficient" means AFUE, would eliminate all but the most basic furnaces installed since 1990 or so. The bill savings may be hard to demonstrate for downstate electric customers. There are a bunch of other caveats, so yeah, whether intentional or not, this probably makes it hard for gas-heated homes to get incentives under this program. (Often the libs get owned in these qualification development process..."We need to make this very targeted for a hundred seemingly good reasons..." not realizing that the sum of the quals they develop cut millions of households out.) But, really, the total $ discussed, $300M for the program lifetime, not per year, in NYS is kinda chump change for a state with 10Mish households.
How do those incentives apply to renters? Is it the kind of thing where landlords can claim the incentives on behalf of low or moderate income tenants?
Why do so many people get wrapped up with NEPA and other federal permitting reform when the real concern should be county councils, township boards, etc? Is it simply that blue-state activists feel they might be able to have influence at the federal level that they lack in rural areas of states where they don't live?
I think partly yes. Also, the arguments against wind and solar projects are ones that progressives and environmentalists might make against any "development." Views, wildlife, fire safety, toxins, farmland preservation, noise... Out-of-state, or foreign (eek!), profit-mongers pillaging the locals... And I find most "climate activists" don't quite know to fight the claims that renewables are "unreliable" and "use too many resources and too much energy to build," so aren't really "clean," and so on.
The local youth, particularly young men, are often as right-reactionary as the middle age folks you see at the meetings. There is intimidation of locals who support renewables. There ain't no cancel culture like small town cancel culture.
On Twitter you called Patrick Wyman's "American Gentry" (https://patrickwyman.substack.com/p/american-gentry) a "foundational text", for understanding our world today. Since I'm also a big fan of that piece, I was curious if there are others you'd also consider "foundational texts". If they're in the same category as "American Gentry" I'd like to make sure I've read them.
I love Construction Physics! Here's how I'd reconcile it, but I think pieces are still missing: The format is very different, but I think his mission is similar to Volts. HOW do we do things? Plus a lot of historical context in some policy areas. I think Patrick's essay gets at an important part of WHY we (as a society) do what we do. Patrick's answer is heavy on materialism, so it intersects a lot with the world Brian describes.
Without blowing smoke asswards, I wanted to mention your lovely, warm, mellifluous voice (my wife asked if I was listening to Seth Rogen the other day), and I wondered if moving from print to spoken word had meant anything for how you create. It's obviously more relaxed, and immediate, as a medium - is this good for getting to the nub of the issue, or do you find it's easy to lose some of the discipline of a carefully researched piece (it certainly doesn't sound that way)? Whichever, I look forward to the podcast dropping every time I see there is one. The contrast with Mike Casey's cartoon rodent voice was my favourite - I'd very much like to hear you narrate a documentary..
I just listened to your podcast with Jane Melia (Harvest) and that reminded me of another company I came across that's bolting together pieces of equipment in interesting ways. SunDrum solar (https://www.sundrumsolar.com/technology) is slapping a heat exchanger on the back of PV panels attached to a heat pump to get both electricity (from the PV), solar heat and radiative cooling. Hybrid PV-themeral collectors exist and seem to make sense since in a PV system, you're only going to get 20-30% of the energy from the sun as electricity and the rest is mostly heat. So why aren't they more popular/common?
As a climate journalist and as a parent, how do you think high schools should approach teaching students about climate change so as to be better informed and engage with it seriously without descending into fatalism/doomerism? How have you discussed it with your own children?
I've seen you on ex-Twitter posting about studies quantifying the health impacts from air pollution from fossil fuels, health impacts of oil & gas extraction, health impacts of heat waves, etc.. basically saying something like "how many more of these do we need"? Unfortunately, studying and quantifying the health burden of fossil fuels and climate change is one of the few ways that public health, especially public health academics, can get involved in the work of climate mitigation and the energy transition, at least that I can see.
Do you have any other good ideas of ways that public health, both academics and practitioners out in the real world, can get involved in climate mitigation and the energy transition and how to do this? I am curious about your thoughts on public health and climate mitigation and the energy transition specifically, since climate adaptation work fits more cleanly into the usual methods, funders, institutions, and culture of public health academics and practice.
Your dogs are so cute! We have a Golden that we too adore. Do you ever think about the climate impact of pets? Know of any good efforts to decarbonize the pet sector? Too niche to matter? Our dog is mostly vegetarian so that's a start!
From what I understand a large portion of the potential reductions built into the IRA depends on the US greatly expanding its domestic production of Lithium. Is this the US on target to deliver on the necessary increased Lithium production? If not what is currently holding back this development?
--- MAILBAG QUESTIONS ---
Last episode, you discussed utility incentives. What I don’t understand is: why aren’t utilities doing everything they can to build renewables? If they earn a rate of return off capital, renewables are all capex and should build utility capital bases faster than more gas (which has all variable costs/fuel costs billed to ratepayers at cost). 10GW of renewables + storage is guaranteed to earn more profit for utilities than a similar quantity of gas, so why aren’t utilities favoring renewables?
Well, the utilities earn a rate of return on the absolute COST of their capex, right? And the "problem" (within this system of regulation) is that renewables are pretty cheap to install (even if they're even cheaper to operate). So even if renewables are all capex while gas additionally incurs fuel costs, then if you need some fixed quantity of new power capacity, it might still be cheaper to install a bunch of solar panels than to build a huge fossil fuel plant? The relevant base quantity seems to me to be the *absolute* cost of capex per unit of power generation, not the *percentage* of the total cost of power generation that goes to capex.
Thought you might want to look into something else happening in New York State. I don't think it's been publicized yet, but we are one of the first states to roll out the IRA incentives that allow low and moderate income folks to get point-of-sale rebates for various household electrification and energy efficiency things. My family qualifies as moderate income, so I've been waiting for this since the bill passed. We do not have air conditioning in our home. The increasingly hot summers combined with poor air quality have made this a top priority for us and heat pumps are obviously the way to do it. I've now learned from two contractors that the IRA incentives are rolling out this month and NYS has made any fossil gas home ineligible. Apparently the feds are going along - or maybe it was their idea? It would be interesting to learn more about this. Is this a common sense way to ensure the incentives go to the houses that will see the biggest payoff, both in terms of carbon emissions and financial rewards? Those who use heating oil or electric resistance heating probably should convert to heat pumps first. On the other hand, why must it be an either/or proposition? Is this another example of NYS bending over backwards to appease the fossil gas industry? Will other states now use up all the IRA money allocated for this before NYS gets the chance to spend its fair share? (My guess is that fossil gas is the predominant mode of residential heating in NYS.) And why not provide incentives to encourage heat pump air conditioners instead of the older, inefficient kind? Can you tell I'm grumpy about this?
Not sure which "contractors" are telling you this. If you want to get on the program, you need to sign up for an "energy audit" first. Of course, more green tape, particularly if someone is going to roll a truck, look at you home, do a whole report and tell you that the thing that makes the biggest difference isn't funded. But pretty easy to just sign up.
https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/EmPower-New-York-Program/EmPower-Application
They did stick in a bizarre set of caveats. From https://f0bea1.p3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/5.10-Heat-Pump-Requirements-August-2023.pdf
"For homes that heat with oil, propane, coal, electrical resistance, kerosene, pellets, and wood the project does not have to pass a total project savings for approval.
For homes heating with natural gas, the existing equipment must be 80% efficient or below and the project should show a net utility bill savings of 10% or greater for approval."
The "80% efficient or below," assuming "efficient" means AFUE, would eliminate all but the most basic furnaces installed since 1990 or so. The bill savings may be hard to demonstrate for downstate electric customers. There are a bunch of other caveats, so yeah, whether intentional or not, this probably makes it hard for gas-heated homes to get incentives under this program. (Often the libs get owned in these qualification development process..."We need to make this very targeted for a hundred seemingly good reasons..." not realizing that the sum of the quals they develop cut millions of households out.) But, really, the total $ discussed, $300M for the program lifetime, not per year, in NYS is kinda chump change for a state with 10Mish households.
That document is from August 2023. I've been told there is brand new guidance out this month that comes with the rollout of the IRA rebates.
How do those incentives apply to renters? Is it the kind of thing where landlords can claim the incentives on behalf of low or moderate income tenants?
Why do so many people get wrapped up with NEPA and other federal permitting reform when the real concern should be county councils, township boards, etc? Is it simply that blue-state activists feel they might be able to have influence at the federal level that they lack in rural areas of states where they don't live?
I think partly yes. Also, the arguments against wind and solar projects are ones that progressives and environmentalists might make against any "development." Views, wildlife, fire safety, toxins, farmland preservation, noise... Out-of-state, or foreign (eek!), profit-mongers pillaging the locals... And I find most "climate activists" don't quite know to fight the claims that renewables are "unreliable" and "use too many resources and too much energy to build," so aren't really "clean," and so on.
The local youth, particularly young men, are often as right-reactionary as the middle age folks you see at the meetings. There is intimidation of locals who support renewables. There ain't no cancel culture like small town cancel culture.
As someone that has 30 years experience with NEPA. It’s a farce and waste.
On Twitter you called Patrick Wyman's "American Gentry" (https://patrickwyman.substack.com/p/american-gentry) a "foundational text", for understanding our world today. Since I'm also a big fan of that piece, I was curious if there are others you'd also consider "foundational texts". If they're in the same category as "American Gentry" I'd like to make sure I've read them.
I love Construction Physics! Here's how I'd reconcile it, but I think pieces are still missing: The format is very different, but I think his mission is similar to Volts. HOW do we do things? Plus a lot of historical context in some policy areas. I think Patrick's essay gets at an important part of WHY we (as a society) do what we do. Patrick's answer is heavy on materialism, so it intersects a lot with the world Brian describes.
Without blowing smoke asswards, I wanted to mention your lovely, warm, mellifluous voice (my wife asked if I was listening to Seth Rogen the other day), and I wondered if moving from print to spoken word had meant anything for how you create. It's obviously more relaxed, and immediate, as a medium - is this good for getting to the nub of the issue, or do you find it's easy to lose some of the discipline of a carefully researched piece (it certainly doesn't sound that way)? Whichever, I look forward to the podcast dropping every time I see there is one. The contrast with Mike Casey's cartoon rodent voice was my favourite - I'd very much like to hear you narrate a documentary..
I just listened to your podcast with Jane Melia (Harvest) and that reminded me of another company I came across that's bolting together pieces of equipment in interesting ways. SunDrum solar (https://www.sundrumsolar.com/technology) is slapping a heat exchanger on the back of PV panels attached to a heat pump to get both electricity (from the PV), solar heat and radiative cooling. Hybrid PV-themeral collectors exist and seem to make sense since in a PV system, you're only going to get 20-30% of the energy from the sun as electricity and the rest is mostly heat. So why aren't they more popular/common?
As a climate journalist and as a parent, how do you think high schools should approach teaching students about climate change so as to be better informed and engage with it seriously without descending into fatalism/doomerism? How have you discussed it with your own children?
I've seen you on ex-Twitter posting about studies quantifying the health impacts from air pollution from fossil fuels, health impacts of oil & gas extraction, health impacts of heat waves, etc.. basically saying something like "how many more of these do we need"? Unfortunately, studying and quantifying the health burden of fossil fuels and climate change is one of the few ways that public health, especially public health academics, can get involved in the work of climate mitigation and the energy transition, at least that I can see.
Do you have any other good ideas of ways that public health, both academics and practitioners out in the real world, can get involved in climate mitigation and the energy transition and how to do this? I am curious about your thoughts on public health and climate mitigation and the energy transition specifically, since climate adaptation work fits more cleanly into the usual methods, funders, institutions, and culture of public health academics and practice.
Your dogs are so cute! We have a Golden that we too adore. Do you ever think about the climate impact of pets? Know of any good efforts to decarbonize the pet sector? Too niche to matter? Our dog is mostly vegetarian so that's a start!
From what I understand a large portion of the potential reductions built into the IRA depends on the US greatly expanding its domestic production of Lithium. Is this the US on target to deliver on the necessary increased Lithium production? If not what is currently holding back this development?