If you’re trying to climb out of a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. Our world is trying to climb out of the climate disruption hole being created by greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, we keep drilling, building pipelines, and connecting buildings to fossil fuels in the form of fracked methane, which has more global warming potential than coal. To avoid catastrophic climate disruption, it must stop – and soon.
Every new building MUST be constructed to consume only electricity. And that electricity should be generated from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, waves, or anything else that doesn’t worsen climate change. Every home, apartment, office, store, warehouse, and factory must perform all its functions without releasing ANY greenhouse gas pollution. Anyone who contributes to the construction of a building – whether it’s with their hands, mind, capital, or services – must do everything they can to make it compatible with a future free of greenhouse gases.
The Building Commitment
Buildings last for decades, and if they are well designed and built, they could last for centuries. When a person designs or builds any modern structure they are making a commitment on behalf of their community, nation, and planet to the long-term energy consumption of that building. The energy required for heating, cooling, lighting, and equipment is locked in. Our economy, our energy resources, and our atmosphere will need to support that building for its entire life. While it’s possible to retrofit a building, it’s far less expensive, less trouble, and it simply makes more sense to build them correctly in the first place. We can no longer afford to wait until a building needs to be replaced before making the transition from fossil energy to renewable energy.
Fossil Methane
Coal and petroleum have already been phased out of new buildings. We must now sever the connection between buildings and greenhouse gas generating fossil methane, or natural gas. Let’s face it, there is nothing natural about natural gas. Natural gas is a fossil deposit similar to coal or petroleum. Methane itself is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas than carbon dioxide, making direct leakage into the atmosphere a serious problem. Burning fossil methane also releases these potent greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The highest level of CO2 ever recorded during human existence just occurred in 2019 – and increasing methane emissions will make this much worse. Fossil methane is not a “cleaner” alternative to other fossil fuels. Nor is it a bridge fuel to bide time. Time is up. All fossil fuels, including methane, must be phased out immediately. It is totally counterproductive to make a multi-decade commitment to yet another climate disrupting fuel.
All-Purpose Electricity
On the other hand, electricity can be created entirely from renewable energy sources – sources that release zero carbon or other greenhouse gases into our Earth’s atmosphere.
In residential buildings, natural gas is used for space heating, water heating, and cooking. All of these can be cost-effectively accomplished with off-the-shelf, highly energy-efficient electric technologies. An air source heat pump will maintain a comfortable indoor temperature in both heating and cooling seasons. The same heat pump technology provides abundant hot water. An induction cooktop cooks faster, is easier to fine tune than a gas range, and does not pollute indoor air. Heat pump clothes dryers, are gentler on clothes and are highly energy efficient. Anything natural gas can do, electricity can do better.
Heat Pump Technology
Heat pumps are central to this transition, because the overall energy efficiency of the system is much higher than burning fossil methane. However, heat pumps need to advance to the next generation to optimize their contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The refrigerants currently used in heat pumps have a high global warming potential (GWP) if they escape into the atmosphere. Low GWP refrigerants are available and should be more widely used to further improve the overall benefits of heat pump technology. Examples of these new devices, such as the Sanden Heat Pump Water Heater, are already available on the market.
Direct Cost
Electricity as a fuel is currently more expensive than fossil methane, but the electrical equipment used on site is far more energy efficient, helping level the playing field. For example, the combustion efficiency of most gas water heating tanks is around 62%. That means that only 62% of the heat content of the fuel is converted to hot water in the tank. The rest is wasted energy that escapes up the flue. The best tankless gas water heaters are around 96% efficient. Better, but still limited. A good heat pump water heater is around 300% efficient, meaning that each unit of electric energy purchased turns into three units of hot water in the tank. So homeowners pay less for hot water.
Indirect Cost
Can we afford to shift away from fossil methane? The answer is, we can’t afford NOT to! The science is very clear: fossil fuels drive climate change. Fossil methane seems inexpensive, because the industry is subsidized with cheap access to government land, tax breaks, free use of transportation infrastructure, and free use of the atmosphere as a dumping ground for air pollution. But the present and future costs of climate change are not included in the purchase price. Massive floods, wildfires, drought, famine, ever stronger tornadoes and hurricanes, and massive human migrations are the “second-hand smoke” from society’s addiction to fossil fuels. Gas explosions and fires are happening more frequently as pipelines age without adequate maintenance. The cost to public health and safety is far higher than the price paid at the gas meter. Clean, renewable energy benefits everyone.
Infrastructure Savings
Every home, commercial building, and neighborhood needs electricity for lights, appliances, and equipment, etc. For that reason, electricity is delivered to almost every location and is far more widely available than fossil methane. This system is already in place. Why should we invest valuable capital for redundant energy infrastructure? In California, consumers would save from $130 to $540 per year simply by NOT installing fossil methane connections to homes. It is past time for the entire economy to transition to one energy infrastructure that can integrate and distribute energy from all renewable sources.
Energy Efficiency First
There is more to this paradigm shift than switching away from greenhouse gas producing fuel sources. An essential step on this transition will be to construct each building to the highest standard of energy efficiency. The building shell must be designed and built to minimize energy needs. Then, equipment within the building must be the most energy efficient available. Solar electric and battery systems should be installed on-site whenever possible. Combining energy-efficient construction with all-electric buildings is an essential step to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
The All-Electric Future
The age of fossil methane is over. Electricity is the fuel of the future. It can be generated from cheap, abundant renewable energy resources. Modern heat pumps, highly energy-efficient appliances, and other technologies make it less expensive for consumers than today’s greenhouse gas emitting status quo. All-electric buildings are safer and easier to manage. As utility transmission and distribution evolves into a “smart” grid, it will become more resilient and easily grow to meet future demand. And renewable-sourced electricity provides us with the only realistic means by which we can preserve our modern lifestyle while effectively reducing greenhouse gases. From this day forward, all buildings MUST be all electric.
Eric says:
Wow, I have never read something so false and so biased. Everything from the choice of words changing ‘Natural Gas’ to ‘Fossil Methane’ throughout to make Natural gas sound bad. Yes, the author makes a couple of valid points, such as the combustion of natural gas does create CO2 emissions and CO2 is a greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. Here is what these authors missed…First, they assume that there can be a 100% zero emissions electric future, but that isn’t close to being feasible. Proponents of electrification fail to note how we will meet marginal electric loads and how we will power homes and businesses during periods of severe weather when the sun isn’t shining. Batteries are not the answer. Studies say that there isn’t enough Lithium in the China and Chili mines to make enough batteries to store the power we need for nighttime or peak day power usage. Solar is great when the sun is shining and wind power works when windy. Today, the only viable way to meet the marginal electric swing load is with fossil fuel power generation. And fossil fuel power generation is just ~32% efficient today with 2/3 of the energy going out the power generation stack to the environment. So when you use electric at your home, 2/3 of the energy that went into making it was lost to the atmosphere. And the cost of electric to homes and businesses is 3-5X that of natural gas today depending on location. Granted, the electric tank water heater is 90% efficient and the gas water heater is just 62% efficient, but because electric costs more, the site electric efficiency does not pencil out. Proponents of electrification claim you will save money and save the environment. just go to your local big box hardware store’s website and look at the energy guide labels. A gas tank water heater shows an annual expected cost of around $220 a year and the electric tank water heater will show a cost close to $500 a year. So you will pay more than 2CX to make hot water and heat with electric versus natural gas. That’s today’s reality. Studies suggest that the electric grid needs to double in size to handle all electric homes and businesses and that many trillion dollar cost will surely end up in base electric rates and you may see your current electric costs double again. Do the math, electric is 2X gas today and then 2X that again for a whole new grid and you get to pay 4 time what you pay for energy today. Ok, did this help mother Earth, yes a little, but the residential sector account for just 6% of all greenhouse gas emissions and we are still going to use fossil fuel power to meet marginal and peak electric loads so even though we will add some additional renewable power to the mix, fossil fuels are still being burned and estimates are that just 1-2% of CO will be saved if all homes and businesses convert to electric. And yes there are better electric technologies such as the electric heat pump water heater that can be very efficient, but what they are not sating in this article is that the electric heat pump water heater costs 3X that of a conventional water heater and it has a much slower recovery time, meaning you need a larger heat pump water heater than you do a standard electric tank or risk cold showers. And the electric heat pump water heater requires that it be installed in a 10’x10′ unconditioned space and that space is going to actually get colder as the heat pump takes heat from that space to make hot water. if you install the heat pump water heater in a conditioned space it will rob heat from that space that will need to be made up with the heat system effectively reducing the overall efficiency of that system. In short, there are definite carbon emitters that are far worse than homes and businesses and there is no silver bullet. Energy efficiency across all energy sources is key to reducing our carbon footprint.
Bruce Sullivan says:
I’m so happy that you have taken the time to respond to this post in detail. We need to bring all these ideas up for discussion if we are to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. You’re absolutely right that energy efficiency is the first and most important step. Unfortunately, it’s not sufficient. We have to go much, much further.
Here are some more thoughts.
I believe we can reach 100 percent renewable energy in the long run. Arguing that we shouldn’t try at all if we can only get to 80-90% doesn’t seem productive. Energy storage is a very big challenge. Current battery technology is probably not going to get us there. Fortunately, we have a couple of decades to work on flow batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro and compressed air. All of these technologies are in development and may be commercialized in coming years.
Just two years ago, estimates said that renewables would provide 25% of electricity in the US. This year an estimate by the National Renewable Energy Lab raised the value to 50%. That’s a big change in only two years.
Running an electric car on dirty coal power is indeed a bad idea even though it still creates less pollution that an internal combustion engine. There isn’t a single electric grid system in the US that is 100% fossil fuels. Many are around 50% and in one major market it is less than 1%. My electric car runs on the solar power generated on my roof. Since buying the Nissan Leaf two years ago, I’ve spent $10 on fuel, just because I wanted to see how a public charger would work. The rest of my fuel is free and clean.
There is enough roof area in the US to generate up to 80% of the energy we use. Is that the most cost-effective source, probably not, but it illustrates that we have an enormous potential for generating clean energy exactly where we need it. Utility scale solar and wind can contribute, too, and is cheaper still than rooftop solar. The electricity grid will need to grow and get a lot smarter. This evolution will bring us to a point where homes and buildings are both energy-efficient and where supply is integrated with demand. In fact, renewable energy is now far less expensive and more reliable than coal plants and is rapidly surpassing fossil methane.
As we point out in the post, the fuel cost of electricity is higher than the cost of gas, but the efficiency of electric equipment is about four times greater. To consumers, an electric heat pump water heater is cost-comparable to a gas-combustion water heater. The tank is larger because the recovery time is longer, which is precisely why you won’t run out of hot water. I’ve used a 50-gallon HPWH for four years now and never run out of hot water, even when the young folks were visiting. Residential buildings consume about 22% of the energy used in the US according to the US Energy Information Agency. Far from being too little to matter, our homes are precisely where we need to focus our attention. It makes no sense to build a new home today that is NOT zero carbon and powered with renewable electricity.
Calling methane a fossil fuel is accurate and no more biased than calling it “natural”. Right now 50% of the methane mined in North America is the result of fracking, a process that releases methane into the air and injects toxic chemicals into the ground. That alone means that methane cannot be called “natural.”
The reality is that the highest performing energy-efficient products powered by renewable energy will eventually run the planet. The only way to reach a goal is to start moving forward.
Laurie Stone says:
Excellent article because it lays out the problem and makes concrete suggestions to mitigate or solve the problem. Also helpful for builders and architects so they can plan for the future NOW. I’ve downloaded it as a reference article for our two companies (one construction and design; the other architecture, research and design).
Bridget says:
I couldn’t agree more with Eric – “Wow, I have never read something so false and so biased.” If our energy future is solely dependent on electricity then we are in big trouble. When has the lack of competition and diversity ever been good for consumers? Smart energy policies should include incentives and technologies that reduce energy consumption and lower emissions, utilize our energy infrastructure (natural gas, electric, renewables) in the most efficient way and plan for our energy future in a way that protects consumer options. And how does an all-electric scenario impact households who are already struggling to get by? Electricity prices will skyrocket! A diverse energy mix ensures reliability of service and affordability for future generations.
Bruce Sullivan says:
You make a good point Bridget. The problem is that we are already in big trouble. Just ask anyone living on a low lying island. Ask the folks in Miami where they have “sunny day floods” three times a year. The facts are clear, we must phase out all fossil fuels and that includes fossil methane. As I point out in the article, making hot water from electricity is no more expensive than making hot water from gas. The same is true for space heating. Please don’t think the lower cost of fuel is the final answer. What we buy is a warm house and hot water. Renewable electricity generation has already eclipsed coal and is closing in on fossil gas. Just a few months ago, there was a tender for renewable wind generation that came in less expensive than gas-fired generation. In fact, we cannot afford to wait any longer.
Competition doesn’t have to be between fuels. In many states, there is already competition between electricity suppliers resulting from deregulation. Also, you can create your own competition with a rooftop solar system on your house. We write extensively on ZEP about how high performance homes are more affordable than conventional homes. That’s why the agencies and organizations addressing housing affordability generally build homes better than minimum energy code. What’s best for consumers are policies that promote efficiency and renewable energy, not those that prop up legacy fuels.
However, there is hope that we can use our extensive gas distribution infrastructure in a renewably powered world. Existing pipelines can carry hydrogen as well as methane. Hydrogen can be created by electrolysis powered by wind or solar electricity, then transported to users in existing pipelines. It’s even possible to transport hydrogen and methane at the same time in the same pipe and then separate them at the destination. This would be a great way to transition the industry toward renewable fuel. Wouldn’t it be cool for the natural gas industry to build wind farms and generate hydrogen fuel for transportation and heavy industry. It’s time to keep our eyes turned toward the future and not the past. Americans have an amazing capacity for innovation. Let’s use it so that everyone can benefit.
Bruce Sullivan says:
If you’re uncertain about the ability to go fully renewable, here’s an article describing new research. It makes the point better than I can. Please note the graph showing electric generation costs by source.
How to have an all-renewable electric grid
Andrew Schiedel says:
I fully agree that we need to phase out all fossil fuels, and the sooner the better. I also acknowledge the challenges; it won’t be easy. We need to be careful not to write off electricity based on cost concerns or the presence of technical challenges. Methane might be sold at modest prices, but in the long run we’ll pay for climate change one way or another. If spared direct personal impacts, we will still pay higher insurance premiums. It’s better to mitigate now than to try to adapt later.
On the matter of technology, it’s developing rapidly. We need to find every possible strategy to make renewable energy work as well as possible. As a specific example, I think we need to give more attention to electrical demand management. It’s an important tool to minimize the required grid upgrades. Heat pump water heaters do this well by using less power and recovering more slowly. We can also spread out car charging times or dial it back when other demands are high, such as when a heat pump uses electric backup heat for short periods on cold nights.
We have the technology; we need to be willing to use it.
Joe Emerson says:
I could not agree more!