undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthelastgallon6mo ago0 comments

I'm jealous of your financial learnings. However, your model is not accurate as it doesn't factor in the 4 degree improvement in comfort and indoor pollution from propane furnaces: Propane furnaces can cause indoor pollution through the release of pollutants like carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide ($NO_{2}$), and benzene, which are byproducts of combustion.

It also doesn't include the negative externalities because of tragedy of commons. Sadly, these kind of flawed 'financial' calculations are widespread.

What is inspiring from the OPs comment is that this is doable in harsh Canadian winters with negligible solar and it breaks even. Most of the world is living in significantly more sunshine, so it should work out a lot better financially for >99% of the population.

0 comments

antongribok6mo ago

I've lived most of my adult life in houses with forced air furnaces (albeit powered via natural gas, not propane), and what you are saying is inaccurate regarding indoor air pollution unless your furnace is in need of immediate replacement.

A modern furnace works via a heat exchanger, where the combustion produced pollutants never mix with the indoor air being pushed through. All pollutants are expelled outside via a property functioning chimney. This is one reason why you should have the furnace (and chimney function) inspected annually. Aging heat exchangers will show hotspots before there is a possibility of air being mixed, giving plenty of time to plan for a replacement. Of course there is a possibility of failure, which is why you should have a carbon monoxide detector.

caminante6mo ago

I agree it's important to watch for these things.

For externalities or immediate health benefits, heatpumps are pretty defensible. However, solar isn't a saint. Rare earth/mineral mining is hazardous plus only a fraction of solar panels are getting recycled properly.

> this is doable in harsh Canadian winters with negligible solar and it breaks even

It's doable alright. OP got subsidies (See comment re: risk free loan and grants). Talk about externalities, this is definitely wealth transfer.

thelastgallonOP6mo ago

Yes, lets talk about subsidies. Fossil fuels have had and continue to have the most subsidies. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion/year: https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...

The wealth transfer you are alluding to, it is from the poor (everyone) to the rich (fossil fuel billionaires), isn't it?

1 more reply

zbentley6mo ago

I hope we can agree that fossil fuel consumption is something to be avoided. Subsidies are an effective means of incentivizing people to avoid fossil fuels.

If you believe the externalities of solar are a problem, what do you propose to do instead? Should we subsidize some other alternative? Redirect resources from oil to nuclear? Other?

1 more reply

thelastgallonOP6mo ago

> However, solar isn't a saint. Rare earth/mineral mining is hazardous

Solar cells are made of silicon, not rare earths.

For solar, you need to mine ONCE for 25 - 50 years. Fossil fuels are burnt every second continuously. Perhaps you can do the math if its not obvious?

bluGill6mo ago

Indoor propane furnaces exhaust outdoors in most cases. Space heaters that exhaust indoors are rare - more used for garrage heat than house. If you use them of course actount for it, but most are not.

Scene_Cast26mo ago

Theoretically yes, in practice no. There is (according to my sensors) a fairly large CO2 increase inside a room when a modern furnace (with external exhaust) is running. I've confirmed this with several units (all made in the last 10 years), and it's not that the windows are closed - when the furnace turns off, the CO2 drops. And it's not that the exhaust is placed in a bad spot either.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

antongribok6mo ago

caminante6mo ago

I agree it's important to watch for these things.

> this is doable in harsh Canadian winters with negligible solar and it breaks even

It's doable alright. OP got subsidies (See comment re: risk free loan and grants). Talk about externalities, this is definitely wealth transfer.

thelastgallonOP6mo ago

The wealth transfer you are alluding to, it is from the poor (everyone) to the rich (fossil fuel billionaires), isn't it?

1 more reply

zbentley6mo ago

I hope we can agree that fossil fuel consumption is something to be avoided. Subsidies are an effective means of incentivizing people to avoid fossil fuels.

If you believe the externalities of solar are a problem, what do you propose to do instead? Should we subsidize some other alternative? Redirect resources from oil to nuclear? Other?

1 more reply

thelastgallonOP6mo ago

> However, solar isn't a saint. Rare earth/mineral mining is hazardous

Solar cells are made of silicon, not rare earths.

For solar, you need to mine ONCE for 25 - 50 years. Fossil fuels are burnt every second continuously. Perhaps you can do the math if its not obvious?

bluGill6mo ago

Scene_Cast26mo ago

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse