Comment by gnicholas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnicholas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I live in Menlo Park, which is doing this as well. Our energy company, PG&E, gives you a break on your bill if you have an electric furnace because these cost more to operate than gas furnaces.

I'd like to think that a lot of hurdles can be overcome with economies of scale, but this policy tends to indicate that until a new type of electric heating is invented/popularized, there will be higher costs (either for the customer, or for the provider — who spreads the cost over all customers) associated with electric heating.

Downsides of electric transition can in general be mitigated by solar, but heat is most needed in the winter, and at night — and this is when there's the least solar energy available.

Are batteries a necessary missing link? Or is there another way to overcome these downsides to electric heating?

> there will be higher costs associated with electric heating.

it depends on future gas price trajectory, for example Europe currently observes 5-10 times gas price hike.

> until a new type of electric heating is invented/popularized, there will be higher costs

I wouldn't be surprised if electric heat pumps were already cheaper to operate than gas furnaces in many places. Especially in temperate areas like Menlo Park. They are being installed all over the American south.

In areas where people want air conditioning anyway, upgrading to a unit that heats as well is a minor expense.

I think part of the reason is that electricity is very expensive here. Apparently it’s the 3rd most expensive state in the country, with a cost over 75% more than the average nationwide cost. [1]

The electricity we receive is sourced from renewables, and I’m sure that’s part of the reason the price is so much higher than elsewhere.

1: https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/

The reason is not due to renewables, actually. In PG&E territory (which I am most familiar with) more than 2/3rds of your bill typically goes to transmission and distribution costs and 1/3 towards generation. Check out your next bill if you are curious. It’s not a huge surprise that T&D costs so much since that infrastructure keeps burning down the state and there is a lot of deferred maintenance.

It does make for a nice argument to try to decentralize more of the generation closer to where the consumption is happening (eg solar + batteries) to try to reduce our need to invest in T&D.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com