The reality is that expensive electricity in the EU is by design. The EU ETS imposes heavy taxes on fossil fuels (and they are set to increase even more), which in turn causes the price of electricity to rise. Fully renewable electricity generation is still a long way off, so this will continue for a long time. But it is entirely a self-imposed political problem and could easily be fixed by getting rid of the EU ETS or capping the price of emissions at a more reasonable level.
That depends on climate. The longer and colder your winters are, the more you benefit from the reliable efficiency of a ground source. Ground source heat pumps have been the most common choice for heating new single-family homes in Finland for the last ~20 years.
Installation is probably relatively cheaper there due to volume too. In areas where it is less common, there is less competition and fewer options for competent installers.
True but even then there are other criteria too: as I plan to sell the house in 10 years, the extra cost for drilling simply didn't make economical sense (to me). So the "regular" pump had to do, and does it fine.
Yeah, recently saw some numbers for air-to-air vs air-to-groundwater, and it break even after more than 25 years, with more than twice the initial cost
Here in Norway you can get a decent air-to-air minisplit installed for $2k. I've not heard of anyone who paid less than 10x that for an air-to-ground or water-to-ground system, drilling 500-1000 feet is expensive.
The well that you drill will last a 100 years if you don't have bad luck. That is half the cost of installation.
The water/water heatpump unit in my house is 20 years old and has not had any major failures yet. I hope it will run for another ten years before the compressor gives up, but it is indeed approaching its calculated technical lifespan. I estimate it will set me back €10k to have it replaced.
Air/air is the cheaper option over time, even in most of Scandinavia with coldish winters. The main drawback of air/air systems are that they are loud and ugly and therefore annoy both yourself and your neighbours.
Yeah, not worth it in most cases, but when things line up, it is the best.
I've built 3 houses and got a bid on ground source heat for each one. I finally pulled the trigger on the 3rd house because we:
1) Moved where it was quite a bit colder, -20F for a week is common.
2) We have enough land to trench only 6'/2m deep to bury the loops instead of drilling like we would have needed to do on the first 2 houses.
3) There was a tax credit on it
4) No equipment exposed outside
Absolutely love it and it will make it difficult to move away when we want to down size b/c we'll pay more in utilities for half the space.
We also have some air-source on an addition I built, I'd use it anywhere that was slightly warmer than where I'm at.
Bingo. Literally abandonded in Lithuania, air to air is so much cheaper. Some builders even ditch hp altogheter - basic electric underfloor heating + solar panels is so much cheaper.
I'm in New Zealand and my bedroom heater is $20 electric + $20 smart plug + $10 temperature sensor. Winter bill is ~$100 NZD. It would take ~20 years for heat pump to recover install cost alone.
I find that surprising - I'm only slightly north of Lithuania, and the seasonality of solar panels makes them pretty ineffective in the winter, and especially in the pre-dawn when you want to bring the house back up to temperature.
As a Kiwi (now in UK) NZ doesn't get that cold for that long...mostly just wet, unless you're pretty far south.
In UK/other parts of Europe winter gets colder, lasts much longer, humid the entire time (so heat just escapes all over the place). Plus, the buildings here are a lot older - I think upgrading insulation would make a huge difference this side of the world.
I couldn't even imagine Canada. Almost moved there...decided to stay here. No -20c winters for me ty very much.
True, but we've built tokamaks and we're building ITER, which so far has an estimated price of between $45 billion and $65 billion.
Now of course that's a research reactor full of experiments and instrumentation that wouldn't be part of a normal power plant, but given current experience that I think we can expect we won't suddenly knock down the cost to $100M. It's going to be somewhere in the billions. And we have expectations of that DEMO is going to make 750MWe.
We can then plug those estimates into the calculator and basically figure out how cheap and how powerful a fusion reactor has to be for it to make economical sense.
Part of that cost is from ITER being so huge, which is because they use obsolete superconductors. CFS is doing the same thing in a reactor a tenth as big, using newer superconductors that support stronger magnetic fields.
The size and also the complicated governance have made ITER very slow to build, which also increases expense. The JET tokamak is about the size of the reactor CFS is building, and JET was built in a year for the reactor itself, plus three years before that for the building they put it in.
Their coal generation decreased last year. They're building on the order of 70GW of new coal while they decomission or underutilized more than 70GW of pre-existing coal. Meanwhile they installed 450GW of new renewables energy.
Not relevant to the question of which energy source makes sense to build in the year 2026. But sure China has many coal plants left over from 2003 when renewables was more expensive, nobody would dispute that this is a fact, however irrelevant.
Batteries are not appropriate for dealing with Dunkelflauten. There's very little energy flowing through there, so what you want to do is trade lower round trip efficiency for lower capex. The high capex of batteries is best amortized over many charge/discharge cycles, for example for daily storage.
I mean, who cares? Fire up the gas plants in the one week a year you have weather anomalies. We’d still be 90+% carbon free which would be incredible. The last gap can be solved at a later point as technology evolves
And replacing the natural gas burned in those turbines with hydrogen won't be very expensive, since they will be used so infrequently. Storing energy as hydrogen is much cheaper than storing it in batteries, as measured by cost of storage of capacity.
My friend, renewables only have a capacity factor of .1 (10%). That means those "gas plants" (really coal, and the worst quality coal on the planet too) are running 90% of the time. There is a reason why France's grid makes 7x the power for the same CO2 emissions as Germany.
Wind turbines across a whole region you'd be looking at 30% maybe 35% or even 40% if they're off-shore. Off-shore the winds aren't slowed by all the random structures humans build but also the turbines are much taller and as your elevation increases the reliability of the wind increases.
PV it varies by how far you are from the equator, 10% is realistic for a Northern country like the UK or Germany whereas in Africa you might see 25% or even 30%
I see an increasing number of chinese cars where I live in Europe. Though almost none of them are fully electric ones (BEVs here have different licence plates), they're plug-in hybrids at best.
reply