Biden invokes wartime powers to fund electric heaters as he cracks down on gas appliances

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

President Biden invoked a Cold War-era law in a surprising move Friday to pour taxpayer funds into domestic manufacturing of electric heat pumps, an alternative to gas-powered residential furnaces.

In a joint announcement with the White House, the Department of Energy (DOE) said the federal government would award a "historic" $169 million for nine projects across 15 sites nationwide in an effort to accelerate electric heat pump manufacturing. The significant level of funding was made possible after Biden utilized the 1950 Defense Production Act (DPA) to increase domestic production of green energy technologies.

 

Link

Since about 80% of American electricity is generated with fossil fuels this doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.  What is really happening? This will send millions of dollars to companies like Copeland, Honeywell International, Mitsubishi Electric and York International Corporation, all of which are billion-dollar multinational corporations. 

Edited November 20 by OverSword

[Buzz_Light_Year]

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

What is really happening?

Biden is needing donations for his re-election campaign. 

[WVK]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Link

Since about 80% of American electricity is generated with fossil fuels this doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.  What is really happening? This will send millions of dollars to companies like Copeland, Honeywell International, Mitsubishi Electric and York International Corporation, all of which are billion-dollar multinational corporations. 

Seems like converting natural gas to electric then distributing that to homes, with losses due to electrical resistance, will create more greenhouse gases. ?

[+and-then]

It's only fitting he'd use wartime powers since he's actively making war against our nation's soul and infrastructure.

[Occupational Hubris]

6 hours ago, and-then said:

It's only fitting he'd use wartime powers since he's actively making war against our nation's soul and infrastructure.

Tell us how you really feel 

[Tatetopa]

14 hours ago, OverSword said:

Since about 80% of American electricity is generated with fossil fuels this doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. 

Heat pumps are energy efficient and cheaper to run.  I save about $40 a month on energy bills by putting in a heat pump.  Plus I get air conditioning in the summer.   Individual home owners can choose this option and often do when building a new home or  remodeling.   More central gas furnaces are being replaced than being installed new, but they are still an option.

You are Free to Choose.

Here is my take, biased as a happy heat pump owner.  There is a demand for heat pumps for new and remodeling residential and commercial buildings.  Heat pump technology will advance as a result for demand and efficiency. 

Guess where we now buy all of the heat pumps to fill current demand?

https://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/169m-fund-to-boost-us-heat-pump-production/#:~:text=Nearly all the variable capacity,US are manufactured in Asia.

Nearly all the variable capacity compressors currently used in all climate heat pumps sold in the US are manufactured in Asia. 

Not as satisfying as a real number and %, but maybe indicative of many similar industries  currently being centered away from the US.

Now it might be a  really good idea for the US to produce the highest tech, efficient heat pumps here in the US and be a seller and not a buyer.  Develop and keep the technology here. Let goods produced in the US compete in the market.  Kind of seems like America First.

So some projects get kicked off, some tech development funded maybe a manufacturing line expanded to get the process kicked in the butt.  You have to know Biden is concerned about 2024.  So he needs results this year not 2-5 years out.

I guess we will see.

[+OverSword]

7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Here is my take, biased as a happy heat pump owner

Here is my take based on being a tax payer. The government has no right to fund billion dollar multinational companies in order to push a dubious energy agenda. You want a heat pump and think it holds value for you? Fine, be my guest. 

[Doug1066]

23 hours ago, OverSword said:

Link

Since about 80% of American electricity is generated with fossil fuels this doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.  What is really happening? This will send millions of dollars to companies like Copeland, Honeywell International, Mitsubishi Electric and York International Corporation, all of which are billion-dollar multinational corporations. 

Renewables generate 21.5% of US electricity.  Nuclear generates another 18.2%, totaling 39.7% of US production.  https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php

 

That being said, I sort of agree with you.  A better approach would be a cost-share program for the consumer.  The govt reimburses each consumer who installs electric heat a portion of the cost.  Start low, say 25%.  Then gradually increase the share, topping out at 75% over 20 years.  Let the companies compete for business on an open market.

The same safety concerns would be addressed; although, it would take a little longer.

Doug

Edited November 21 by Doug1066

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Here is my take based on being a tax payer. The government has no right to fund billion dollar multinational companies in order to push a dubious energy agenda. You want a heat pump and think it holds value for you? Fine, be my guest. 

Well thanks.  Its really not about me, I made a practical choice, not out of patriotism but to save myself money.

But then I also have an opinion about how my tax dollars are spent.  In my lifetime, I have benefitted from American investment in space technology, medicine, and telecommunications.  Those things have had a huge impact on our lives and the US has maintained  a technological lead. Government funding drove a lot of the early developments.   Past generations benefitted from concrete investments like the highway system and Hoover dam that pay back to this day.

Bringing high tech manufacturing back into the US, along with technological development and high tech jobs is more than a dubious energy policy. I want us to claw back our technological and economic lead and make the US more competitive. Part of it may be ascribed to patriotism, I want the US to maintain our position in the world.  Part of it is pragmatism,  in a prosperous US , I do better as well.

 

 

 

[Raptor Witness]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

The government has no right to fund billion dollar multinational companies in order to push a dubious energy agenda.

“No right” to have policy? That’s naive to the point of being pitiful.

This is about efficiency and the danger of methane escaping from a central hub or power plant vs. billons of billowing, inefficient methane based appliances.

Not all policy is political, sometimes it’s about simple, self preservation.

[acidhead]

22 hours ago, WVK said:

Seems like converting natural gas to electric then distributing that to homes, with losses due to electrical resistance, will create more greenhouse gases. ?

The answer, IMO, has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide. 

It's about conservation of fossil fuels for future generations because believe it or not the planet is going to run out of it sooner than later. This is the real emergency. 

 

[DayoOlabisi]

policy aside, i have two heat pumps and very happy with them. i have solar panels as well which means i'm leveraging solar power to help cover my heat costs. i live in a very cold area in winter and still need to use a furnace for the handful of the coldest days. otherwise the heat pumps do the job very well.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Raptor Witness said:

“No right” to have policy? That’s naive to the point of being pitiful.

 

You are right.  I meant that I believe this is wrong headed policy.  Government interference with the economy is against my beliefs unless it is minimal.  This is not minimal.  You can say next that the government subsidizes  like this all the time.  I am aware.  I am against that. 

 

Edited November 21 by OverSword

[DarkHunter]

23 hours ago, WVK said:

Seems like converting natural gas to electric then distributing that to homes, with losses due to electrical resistance, will create more greenhouse gases. ?

It's a bit more complicated then that.

There are issues with losses due to electrical resistance but there are also issues with pipes leaking natural gas, which does act as a greenhouse gas.  Overall the greenhouse issues from either are rather small unless something is horribly wrong.

The bigger problem is with the conversions.  Converting electricity to heat is essentially 100% efficient but converting natural gas to electricity is generally around 45% to 57% efficient.  Essentially using electric heating would burn roughly twice as much natural gas for the same amount of heat compared to just burning natural gas directly for a home.

[WVK]

5 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

It's a bit more complicated then that.

There are issues with losses due to electrical resistance but there are also issues with pipes leaking natural gas, which does act as a greenhouse gas.  Overall the greenhouse issues from either are rather small unless something is horribly wrong.

The bigger problem is with the conversions.  Converting electricity to heat is essentially 100% efficient but converting natural gas to electricity is generally around 45% to 57% efficient.  Essentially using electric heating would burn roughly twice as much natural gas for the same amount of heat compared to just burning natural gas directly for a home.

Then there is this:

Natural Gas Heat vs Electrical Heat – Which is Cheaper – 2023

https://shrinkthatfootprint.com/natural-gas-heat-vs-electrical-heat/

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

It's about conservation of fossil fuels for future generations because believe it or not the planet is going to run out of it sooner than later. This is the real emergency. 

That is not exactly accurate.

Fossil fuels is a pretty horrible term to use to accurately describe the situation.  To simplify a rather complex subject but crude oil is in finite supply and will run out eventually, natural gas can be made multiple ways, and coal can essentially be created/substituted with torrified biomass.

All the stuff that we make from crude oil can be made from any other hydrocarbon source, which includes biomatter.  It's shockingly easy to turn coal into gasoline or jet fuel.  The reason why we use crude oil so much is that it is so cheap and stupidly easy to take it and turn it into what we want it beats out all other methods.  Humanity's understanding of hydrocarbons is effectively near complete and we can take any hydrocarbon and turn it into any other hydrocarbon.

[acidhead]

9 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

That is not exactly accurate.

Fossil fuels is a pretty horrible term to use to accurately describe the situation.  To simplify a rather complex subject but crude oil is in finite supply and will run out eventually, natural gas can be made multiple ways, and coal can essentially be created/substituted with torrified biomass.

All the stuff that we make from crude oil can be made from any other hydrocarbon source, which includes biomatter.  It's shockingly easy to turn coal into gasoline or jet fuel.  The reason why we use crude oil so much is that it is so cheap and stupidly easy to take it and turn it into what we want it beats out all other methods.  Humanity's understanding of hydrocarbons is effectively near complete and we can take any hydrocarbon and turn it into any other hydrocarbon.

Thanks, interesting points to ponder