frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

Start all of your commands with a comma (2009)

https://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2009/commands-with-comma/
233•theblazehen•2d ago•68 comments

OpenCiv3: Open-source, cross-platform reimagining of Civilization III

https://openciv3.org/
694•klaussilveira•15h ago•206 comments

Hoot: Scheme on WebAssembly

https://www.spritely.institute/hoot/
6•AlexeyBrin•1h ago•0 comments

The Waymo World Model

https://waymo.com/blog/2026/02/the-waymo-world-model-a-new-frontier-for-autonomous-driving-simula...
962•xnx•20h ago•555 comments

How we made geo joins 400× faster with H3 indexes

https://floedb.ai/blog/how-we-made-geo-joins-400-faster-with-h3-indexes
130•matheusalmeida•2d ago•35 comments

Unseen Footage of Atari Battlezone Arcade Cabinet Production

https://arcadeblogger.com/2026/02/02/unseen-footage-of-atari-battlezone-cabinet-production/
67•videotopia•4d ago•6 comments

Vocal Guide – belt sing without killing yourself

https://jesperordrup.github.io/vocal-guide/
54•jesperordrup•5h ago•24 comments

Jeffrey Snover: "Welcome to the Room"

https://www.jsnover.com/blog/2026/02/01/welcome-to-the-room/
37•kaonwarb•3d ago•27 comments

ga68, the GNU Algol 68 Compiler – FOSDEM 2026 [video]

https://fosdem.org/2026/schedule/event/PEXRTN-ga68-intro/
10•matt_d•3d ago•2 comments

Show HN: Look Ma, No Linux: Shell, App Installer, Vi, Cc on ESP32-S3 / BreezyBox

https://github.com/valdanylchuk/breezydemo
236•isitcontent•15h ago•26 comments

Monty: A minimal, secure Python interpreter written in Rust for use by AI

https://github.com/pydantic/monty
233•dmpetrov•16h ago•125 comments

Where did all the starships go?

https://www.datawrapper.de/blog/science-fiction-decline
32•speckx•3d ago•21 comments

UK infants ill after drinking contaminated baby formula of Nestle and Danone

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c931rxnwn3lo
11•__natty__•3h ago•0 comments

Show HN: I spent 4 years building a UI design tool with only the features I use

https://vecti.com
335•vecti•17h ago•147 comments

Hackers (1995) Animated Experience

https://hackers-1995.vercel.app/
502•todsacerdoti•23h ago•244 comments

Sheldon Brown's Bicycle Technical Info

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/
386•ostacke•21h ago•97 comments

Show HN: If you lose your memory, how to regain access to your computer?

https://eljojo.github.io/rememory/
300•eljojo•18h ago•186 comments

Microsoft open-sources LiteBox, a security-focused library OS

https://github.com/microsoft/litebox
361•aktau•22h ago•185 comments

An Update on Heroku

https://www.heroku.com/blog/an-update-on-heroku/
425•lstoll•21h ago•282 comments

PC Floppy Copy Protection: Vault Prolok

https://martypc.blogspot.com/2024/09/pc-floppy-copy-protection-vault-prolok.html
68•kmm•5d ago•10 comments

Dark Alley Mathematics

https://blog.szczepan.org/blog/three-points/
96•quibono•4d ago•22 comments

Was Benoit Mandelbrot a hedgehog or a fox?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.01122
21•bikenaga•3d ago•11 comments

The AI boom is causing shortages everywhere else

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/02/07/ai-spending-economy-shortages/
19•1vuio0pswjnm7•1h ago•5 comments

How to effectively write quality code with AI

https://heidenstedt.org/posts/2026/how-to-effectively-write-quality-code-with-ai/
265•i5heu•18h ago•216 comments

Delimited Continuations vs. Lwt for Threads

https://mirageos.org/blog/delimcc-vs-lwt
33•romes•4d ago•3 comments

Introducing the Developer Knowledge API and MCP Server

https://developers.googleblog.com/introducing-the-developer-knowledge-api-and-mcp-server/
64•gfortaine•13h ago•28 comments

I now assume that all ads on Apple news are scams

https://kirkville.com/i-now-assume-that-all-ads-on-apple-news-are-scams/
1076•cdrnsf•1d ago•460 comments

Female Asian Elephant Calf Born at the Smithsonian National Zoo

https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/female-asian-elephant-calf-born-smithsonians-national-zoo-an...
39•gmays•10h ago•13 comments

Understanding Neural Network, Visually

https://visualrambling.space/neural-network/
298•surprisetalk•3d ago•44 comments

I spent 5 years in DevOps – Solutions engineering gave me what I was missing

https://infisical.com/blog/devops-to-solutions-engineering
154•vmatsiiako•20h ago•72 comments
Open in hackernews

New England's last coal plant has stopped operating, according to its owners

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2025-10-06/new-englands-last-coal-plant-has-stopped-operating-according-to-its-owners
96•toomuchtodo•3mo ago

Comments

toomuchtodo•3mo ago
https://www.gem.wiki/Merrimack_Station
3eb7988a1663•3mo ago
Before anyone jumps the gun and says this is a political move, this is quite likely just economics.

Peak coal was in 2007, and has been falling rapidly since. We are currently generating about 1/3 the electricity from coal in 2023 vs 2007[0].

[0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

not2b•3mo ago
Yes, natural gas is now cheaper than coal for power generation, and solar has become much cheaper. Even disregarding environmental concerns, it's just not a good choice any more.
ericd•3mo ago
I'm curious, in case anyone knows, how much of the economic disadvantage of coal is because of environmental reg compliance versus other, more fundamental costs?
eru•3mo ago
Well, if you want to answer that question, you probably also need to figure out the hypothetical cost of the other power sources minus environmental regulations.

Nuclear would be (and used to be) massively cheaper, before regulations went wild against it.

I'm deliberately saying 'went wild', because the earlier nuclear power generation that was built to saner standards also has turned out to be incredibly safe already.

(Basically, anyone who avoided insane Soviet bullshit had safe nuclear power, as measured in eg fatalities per Joule of electricity generated.)

juliankauai•3mo ago
Except of course, Fukushima. Or any nuclear plant that gets hit by tsunami, earthquake, terrorism,or other natural disaster.
yobbo•3mo ago
Were there any deaths from the Fukushima nuclear disaster?

A large area was evacuated and "human costs" were great. But as I recall, no deaths from radiation.

Gibbon1•3mo ago
People whose metabolic reserve is low often die when you stress them.

I saw a study claiming 440 excess deaths from the Los Angeles fires. I'll make an assumption that permanently moving old and health impaired people from the Fukushima exclusion zone had a similar increase in mortality. And then a bit of looking leads me to this.

"The evacuation itself also was not without severe consequences. The accident was in the winter, and the evacuation of 840 patients or elderly people in nursing homes and health-care facilities apparently resulted in 60 immediate deaths due to hypothermia, dehydration, trauma and deterioration of serious medical conditions (Tanigawa et al 2012) and upwards of 100 deaths in subsequent month"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/33/3/49...

Like the Grapes of Wrath where the family starts out for California and the grandparents both die on the way.

LarsAlereon•3mo ago
It looks like the top-end estimate is that the Fukushima disaster may have caused up to 500 additional total lifetime deaths from cancer. Roughly 23,000 people per year died of diseases attributed to coal power plants in the United States alone from 1999-2020.

Edit: Changed "linked to" to "attributed to", because this is the estimated count of people who would not have died of disease if coal power plants were not running.

pfdietz•3mo ago
500 deaths at $12M per life is $6B. This is a small fraction of the total cost of Fukushima.

People say LNT overestimates deaths, but what they don't realize is that even if you take LNT at face value the cost of deaths from a nuclear accident isn't really that high. A regulatory regime where reactor operators that have accidents are charged the inferred cost of the expected deaths could work.

chairmansteve•3mo ago
Yes, If there were 20x nuclear power stations, there would probably have been 20x Fukushima scale incidents.

Murphy's law is real...

eru•3mo ago
Fatalities per Joule of generated electricity is extremely low for nuclear power, even if you add not just Fukushima but also Chernobyl.

So if you'd scale up, and keep that level of safety, it would be fine. Even less safety would be fine. After all, we accept much less safety in eg natural gas or even solar power. (Solar power is extremely safe once running, but if you look at casualties over the lifecycle, you get a few people falling off roofs when installing residential solar power. It's a very small number, but nuclear is so safe, that the roof-fall incidents of solar are a big number by comparison.)

bryanlarsen•3mo ago
The regulatory costs of nuclear are mostly occurred in the design phase. Those costs are sunk and mostly irrelevant for new builds of old designs.

The fact that old designs like the AP1000 are crazy expensive to build has a lot more to do with the fact that the US sucks at building mega projects than anything else.

dalyons•3mo ago
It’s not just the US that sucks at mega projects. It’s everywhere that’s not china.
bryanlarsen•3mo ago
Other countries are better at building particular types of mega projects. Some are better at transit, others are better at building tunnels, others are better at building massive ships, et cetera. But in regards to nuclear, I believe you're right.
fragmede•3mo ago
Interestingly, one of the reasons the design phase for nuclear is so onerous is the sheer amount of red tape involved due to compliance and other regulatory reasons. You wanna know something funny? You know what's really good at generating piles of convincing sounding bullshit that it's possible no one even actually reads, and looks like it's totally going to insert fuel rods into the nuclear power industry?

LLMs!

herewulf•3mo ago
This will definitely make the nuclear industry perceptibly safer. How soon can we start?! /s
eru•3mo ago
Nuclear power is arguably way too safe.
pfdietz•3mo ago
I'm getting the impression the problem isn't any particular regulation, but rather than because regulations exist, the design is fixed.

Getting a design approved means a specific design is approved. So, the power plant must be built as designed, no changes. And apparently ensuring you built exactly what the design specifies is really expensive.

What's needed to reduce this cost is having some way to get a whole cloud of closely related designs approved, so that reasonable deviations from the design are also approved. This is equivalent to saying only the most critical part of the design would need to be built as designed, everything else would be allowed some slop. With something like this, one might (for example) be able to build the confinement building with less tight control on the configuration of the reinforcing steel.

I'm don't know how one would get such a cloud of designs approved. Maybe this is a problem that could be solved by massive computation? Run billions of mutant designs through a simulation gauntlet to see how sensitive it is to various perturbations? Or maybe add more defense in depth, like devices that scrub radioactive elements from steam (such things exist) so the tolerable chance of meltdown can be allowed to increase while keeping expected damage in check?

ericd•3mo ago
Sounds kind of like hyperparameter search - you're searching the design space for the bounds of the different parameters. I don't know if parametric design is possible on reactors, but would be neat if possible.
ViewTrick1002•3mo ago
The American nuclear industry was collapsing due to spiraling costs before TMI happened.

This ”before regulations” time period seems to be made up on feelings about a rosy picture of the past rather than actual data.

pfdietz•3mo ago
It wasn't just spiraling costs, but also the collapse in the steady 7%/year growth in electrical energy demand. Without transparency on demand growth, very long term investments become risky (a risk reflected in the bankruptcy of WPPSS). The passage of PURPA in 1978 also didn't help with this as it allowed a flood of non-utility generation onto the grid, helping soak up what demand growth there was.
eru•3mo ago
Yes, regulations started tightening before TMI.

> This ”before regulations” time period seems to be made up on feelings about a rosy picture of the past rather than actual data.

No, we have data about costs in those earlier times, and we know what regulations came in when.

ViewTrick1002•3mo ago
Given the cleanup costs of the early nuclear program maybe they learned a thing or two preventing the externalization of costs?

DOE report: Cost to finish cleaning up Hanford site could exceed $589 billion

https://www.ans.org/news/2025-04-17/article-6942/doe-report-...

Sellafield cleanup cost rises to £136bn amid tensions with Treasury

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/23/sellafield-...

ericd•3mo ago
I'm mostly curious if there's any world in which coal beats at-scale solar production, or if it's totally moot. To be clear, I'm not rooting for that so much as looking for an ironclad case against.

Nuclear is a whole can of worms because of its PR problems.

LarsAlereon•3mo ago
I think it's primarily a fundamental cost issue. It's simply far cheaper to get an equivalent amount of energy from fracking a natural gas formation than having to literally dig coal out of the ground.
pragmatic•3mo ago
You can't put coal in a pipeline.

You have to physically handle every piece of coal. Extract, load ship, unload.

Natural gas is shooting out of the ground in North Dakota.

You can compare to wind and solar also.

The economics aren't favorable.

pfdietz•3mo ago
> You can't put coal in a pipeline.

Yes you can!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_pipeline

A slurry is transported in one variety of these. The trick is to induce a swirl in the flow, so even though particles are constantly falling out of suspension, they stay suspended. It's mathematically analogous to how putting a twist in magnetic field lines in a tokamak (or stellarator) prevents ExB effects from driving the plasma into the wall, as they would in just a plain toroidal magnetic field.

Lots of water is needed and drying the coal before burning it adds cost.

myrmidon•3mo ago
Really interesting, thanks for the link!

Acre-feet as a unit just made me realize how many options you get for volume with multiple base units (a foot-mile-inch is ~12m³ in case anyone was wondering). The non-metric system continues to impress (not in a good way)!

xbmcuser•3mo ago
Coal requires manual labour and mining so even without environmental regulations it's expensive. In the US coal use decrease had very little to do with environmental factors most of it was because fracking brought in cheap natural gas and pushed coal out.
jhallenworld•3mo ago
Its does, but you should see the machines they use for coal mining these days, particularly in Wyoming. A giant strip mine seems to require like 20 workers, but with giant trucks and excavators.

Even for underground mines, check out the massive longwall mining machines they use- it's kind of astonishing. They pretty much take all the coal.

I think this is lost in the political talk about protecting mining jobs- the main original competition is more efficient mining operations.

Anyway, it really says something that natural gas and solar are cheaper than coal given this context.

fragmede•3mo ago
You should see this one! https://youtu.be/azEvfD4C6ow

It's a bit dated (completed in 1978) and cost approximately $100 million. At one point it was the heaviest land vehicle, clocking in at 13,500 tons. It's since been succeded, but this bucket-wheel excavator needed only five people to operate. Those five people could mine 240,000 tons of coal[8] or 240,000 cubic metres of overburden (rock/soil on top of the coal) per day. That's 2400 coal wagons!

After totally tapping out all of the coal at the Tagebau Hambach mine, in 2001, it took a crew of 70 together to move it 14 miles to the next mine. This move cost 15 million German Marks.

(Just watch the linked documentary.)

thelastgallon•3mo ago
Thats the wrong question. The question to ask is what is the death rates per unit of electricity production: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

Coal beats everything else by a mile. We also get mercury pollution for free, so no more eating fish.

ericd•3mo ago
I'm not a coal proponent, just trying to understand the veracity of an argument that I think R's make sometimes (that coal isn't economically viable primarily because state regs make it too expensive).
chris_va•3mo ago
(disclaimer that I manage a climate&energy research group)

Most of the comments here are speculative.

The TLDR is that coal plants have trouble ramping their production up/down quickly, unlike natural gas which can do so in minutes. So, if you have a grid that is being thrashed by variable production (renewables), this results in variable pricing and demand for baseload. Coal cannot economically compete in that market (and neither can nuclear, which has the same problem).

mrDmrTmrJ•3mo ago
Given that renewable power power is self correlated (all the solar panels are producing at once - or they’re not, all the wind turbines are turning at once - or they’re not) - renewable energy leads to low prices when it’s produced and high prices when it’s not.

Why not put massive, grid scale batteries “behind the meter” at a nuclear or coal plant to enable continual production but only sell power when prices are high and store power when prices are low?

soni96pl•3mo ago
Once you have batteries you may do so with solar or wind
ericd•3mo ago
Yeah, but sometimes the intermittency is pretty extreme, and you can get away with significantly less overpaneling and storage if you have a mix of power sources. Not many experts advocate for 100% renewables.
pfdietz•3mo ago
Right; batteries aren't really suitable for the low frequency part of the supply/demand mismatch. Daily storage, great, perhaps up to 1 week, but lower frequencies they are increasingly expensive.

But there are other storage ideas that do much better for that. For example, burning an e-fuel like hydrogen, or ultra low capex thermal storage.

jabl•3mo ago
> Why not put massive, grid scale batteries “behind the meter” at a nuclear or coal plant to enable continual production but only sell power when prices are high and store power when prices are low?

Even better, if you have a functioning wholesale electricity market, you can put those batteries on the grid and benefit everybody.

pfdietz•3mo ago
Batteries are also highly useful for relaxing transmission constraints. I've seen a claim that sufficient storage (at various places in the network) could increase the energy transmittable over the existing grid by a factor of 3.

An analogy here is natural gas pipelines with intermediate storage caverns, which allow the pipelines to operate more steadily even if demand various greatly over the year.

not2b•3mo ago
No, because as the parent comment suggests, if you have solar+wind backed by natural gas and battery storage, if the battery storage isn't enough the natural gas plants can quickly fire up. But coal plants don't have this ability, so it doesn't work as well in this environment (which is today's environment).
robocat•3mo ago
> neither can nuclear

Nuclear can load follow to some extent (my previous comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36254716

But regulations and economics don't encourage it. Also note that NuScale appears to be designed to be dispatchable

monero-xmr•3mo ago
https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/overview

Solar makes up 4% of New England electricity. Not much sun there. Needs nuclear to succeed

toomuchtodo•3mo ago
Unlikely. The ISO has 3.5GW of solar and nuclear capacity equally (I’m aware of capacity factor of solar vs nuclear, but the ISO also reports ~6GW of behind the meter distributed solar which only manifests as reduced demand). The ISO needs more batteries, renewables, and transmission from hydro in Quebec, Canada (1.2GW), but nuclear is not needed to succeed long term and those two generators will eventually be decommissioned, as their license only extends their operating period to ~2050. Twenty five years is plenty of time to replace their 3.5GW of output; 18GW of battery storage, 17GW of wind, and 13.5GW of solar is in the ISO’s interconnect queue or has been proposed by developers.

https://www.mainepublic.org/climate/2025-01-03/central-maine... (“Central Maine Power aims to finish controversial western Maine power corridor in 2025”)

https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2023-11-30/documents-re... (NextEra, which owns the Seabrook nuclear power plant in N.H., stands to lose tens of millions of dollars every year if the NECEC comes online and attempted to use political donations to scuttle the Quebec Hydro transmission line)

https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/what-we-do/smart-grids/ne... (“The new transmission line between Quebec and Maine will provide 1,200 megawatts (MW) of renewable hydroelectric power to the New England power grid in Lewiston, Maine, sufficient to meet the demand of 1.2 million homes. Once built, NECEC will be New England's largest renewable energy source, saving customers $190 million per year.”)

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/government-industry-affairs/new...

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/northeast-...

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-NE-ISNE/live/fif...

(Quebec, interestingly, has ~40GW of hydro generation capacity)

jhallenworld•3mo ago
Yup, I've been watching the NECEC story unfold over the years. Boston's giant natural gas Mystic Generating Station was closed in anticipation of the power being replaced by NECEC.

There is an interesting podcast about Quebec hydropower, it's quite an accomplishment, not without controversy.

https://outsideinradio.org/powerline

fragmede•3mo ago
Apropos nothing, what would happen if that transmission line simply didn't get completed till, say 2028? Hydro power sounds like something woke people might like, and dear leader says we can't have that.
jhallenworld•3mo ago
Or it gets built, but NextEra convinces the dear leader to tariff energy imports. Or Canada just cuts us off for being jerks.
herewulf•3mo ago
Canada may cut you off eventually because the population is rapidly growing and it will want the power for itself. Hopefully New England is preparing for that eventuality.
toomuchtodo•3mo ago
> Canada may cut you off eventually because the population is rapidly growing and it will want the power for itself. Hopefully New England is preparing for that eventuality.

Canada's population growth has stalled. Here's what it means for the economy - https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/canadas-population-growth-... - September 30th, 2025

Canada's population growth almost flat in 2nd quarter as number of non-permanent residents declines - https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-q2-population-1.7642... - September 24th, 2025

indymike•3mo ago
Including regulatory and litigation expenses, this is simply not true. That said, coal is very dirty and is not the best choice for power generation because of pollution. Coal is pretty cheap, and it's take most of my lifetime to change the cost through regulation, litigation and lawmaking.
KevinMS•3mo ago
NE is starved for natural gas. They replaced the coal plants with gas and didn't bother to build enough pipelines (and even blocked them). We are getting a lot of our gas from Tankers from Europe and even Russia before the war. So now NE has nearly the highest electricity costs in the country even though we're not far away from some of the most abundant natural gas in the planet.
juliankauai•3mo ago
Trump just closed the already approved largest solar power project in the US. That’s political. I’m all for fusion but we need power now for the transition. Losing the solar project for 3 million people is a big loss. it takes a long time to get any type of big power up to speed.
recursive•3mo ago
I understand the problem is transmission much more than generation. There's a backlog of power sources waiting to come online for infrastructure to catch up. Or so I heard.
mulmen•3mo ago
Where did you hear this?
recursive•3mo ago
I believe it was an episode of the podcast "Shift Key". Season 2, episode 5 is called "A Beginner's Guide to the Interconnection Queue". The hosts talk to some industry people who present the case. They say that there practical reasons why the interconnection queue is slowing down renewable generation deployment significantly.

I don't know if this podcast presents a balanced view, but it sounds convincing to me.

dalyons•3mo ago
Transmission wasn’t the problem with this project. It was cancelled out of spite
rat87•3mo ago
its an economic move but it would be good not bad if it were a political move coal is bad and we should be moving away from it faster
fsckboy•3mo ago
>Before anyone jumps the gun and says this is a political move, this is quite likely just economics.

Before anyone jumps the gun and says this is likely economics, RTFA at least a few paragraphs:

Granite Shore Power, the company that owns the coal plant in Bow, New Hampshire, said they ceased commercial operations September 12th, about a year and a half since they announced they would retire their facility by 2028 as part of a settlement agreement with environmental groups.

kstenerud•3mo ago
It's going to be a mix of both. If it were massively profitable, they'd just pay up whatever they need to, get whatever influential politicians on their side, do a bunch of marketing, and then continue operations.
nielsbot•3mo ago
Is a settlement agreement w/ environmental groups considered political?
kccqzy•3mo ago
California will also soon stop using coal. Currently there's just one coal generating station left, in Utah.
toomuchtodo•3mo ago
California Will Stop Using Coal as a Power Source Next Month - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45567645 - October 2025
aquova•3mo ago
Unless "coal generating station" means something in particular, this isn't true at all, there's around 200 coal power plants in the US
smelendez•3mo ago
They mean station powering California, not in the US overall.
ericd•3mo ago
Sadly, still quite a lot in PJM, the highest power usage grid in the nation (DC region): https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr...
thehappypm•3mo ago
There actually is some coal in New England, and if there was (for some reason) a desire for New England to be energy independent, coal might be part of the mix as a result. This article discusses some less-successful attempts to get into that coal.. and it’s delightful to see the date of its publication.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massachusetts-coa...

cwal37•3mo ago
Second US organized market to do so, and third in the region, after NY(ISO) and Ontario (IESO).

With HQ there as well, it’s actually quite a large coal-free chunk of grid.

What will be interesting is the extent to which offshore wind and imports from HQ will be able to materialize according to plan. OSW is having a hatchet being taken to it in the US currently, and imports from HQ into NY and NE have been way down recently while big new lines are also built.

Not exactly in the ISO forecasts, but very much supported by state policy has been the rapid expansion of behind the meter solar in New England. Really taken the edge off of summer days in particular, although also susceptible to smoke from Canadian wildfires.

Not the most exciting markets day-to-day, but interesting long-term things happening.

bobthepanda•3mo ago
For those who have trouble parsing this HQ is HydroQuebec.
ChrisArchitect•3mo ago
Meanwhile, just last week:

Climate goals go up in smoke as US datacenters turn to coal

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45545277

fujigawa•3mo ago
Overall this isn't the W you think it is; New England still leads the nation in heating oil consumption by a large margin.

Nearly 2M households in New England heat their homes with oil (usually boiler, sometimes furnace). For those unfamiliar, a tanker truck comes by your house every couple of months and pumps diesel fuel into a tank down cellar, which literally gets burned like a flamethrower to boil water to heat your home. It's dirty but keeps your home toasty warm when it's -20 outside.

Maine in particular has very little natural gas infrastructure. Electric is impractical as New England winters are cold as balls and the houses are usually old and not that well insulated.

toomuchtodo•3mo ago
Heat pumps (they work down to -10F, and can be supplemented with fossil or wood heating, if needed).

https://www.nhpr.org/new-england-news/2024-07-24/new-england...

https://portal.ct.gov/deep/energy/new-england-heat-pump-acce...

pfdietz•3mo ago
Even if powered by gas combined cycles generators, heat pumps use less natural gas than a gas-fired condensing furnace.
toomuchtodo•3mo ago
In my experience, sometimes the heat pump cannot keep up with the rate of envelope heat loss below certain temperatures (think a mid January polar vortex with sustained temperatures under -10F for days in the Midwest). Also, loss of power will mean loss of heat, where at least with a fossil gas furnace, as long as you have enough power to ignite the burners and run the blower, you’ve got heat (I’ve been able to run this with a vehicle inverter on an EV and a “suicide” extension cord with male plugs on both ends, isolating the furnace circuit; would’ve been perfect if it could’ve generated its own power for the blower while consuming fossil gas for heating).

Looking for a self sustaining cogeneration unit that can produce heat and power if needed, if anyone has recommendations, for when I need to recommend it. Heat pump whenever possible, but backups when needed.

pfdietz•3mo ago
If the heat pump is optimally sized, the time over which the backup resistive heater is used will be nonzero (assuming cost of the heat pump scales with its capacity). This is because spending extra to have it cover that last part is not worth it. This ignores its use for A/C; if in a place where the A/C load dominates the sizing then this argument doesn't apply.
gbear605•3mo ago
Electric is extremely practical - I know a lot of New Englanders who have replaced oil burners with heat pumps and made back the investment quite quickly and warmly (it’s easy when a fill up of oil can cost close to a thousand dollars, and you will probably need two in a winter). Insulation helps a lot of course, but the main difficulty is just the upfront cost, time, and structural issues with houses that don’t have central air.
jabl•3mo ago
My father replaced oil burning with an air-water heat pump. That is, the heat pump heats water that circulates in the same pipes and radiators that were used previously. Apart from installing the heat pump in the boiler room, no other changes in the house were necessary.
jdeibele•3mo ago
Does that cool through the radiators as well as heat? It seems like it could but I've never heard of heat pumps being used like that.
jabl•3mo ago
No, heating only. I'd imagine trying to use them for cooling in the summer would easily lead to condensation and attendant moisture damage.
jabl•3mo ago
> For those unfamiliar, a tanker truck comes by your house every couple of months and pumps diesel fuel into a tank down cellar

Huh, how un-insulated are those houses really? I grew up in an area with climate slightly colder than New England, and our house was heated with an oil boiler (not literally boiling, it was just warm water circulating in the radiators, not steam). Consumption was about 1000L per year, and the tank was big enough that one fillup per year was enough.

Since replaced with a heat pump, FWIW.

gertop•3mo ago
> Electric is impractical as New England winters are cold as balls and the houses are usually old and not that well insulated.

They have the same situation a bit further north in Quebec, same vintage of houses, possibly colder winters. Yet they manage with electricity somehow?

fujigawa•3mo ago
It helps that they have cheap hydro out the ass so you don't really care if you need heat pump auxiliary heat, it kind of inverts the equation:

Cost of electricity in Montreal: 8c/kWh

Boston: 47c/kWh

New York: 58c/kWh

Source: https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/compa...

pfdietz•3mo ago
That's New York City, which is more than 3x the cost I pay in Ithaca, NY.

We have a heat pump, btw.

deepnotderp•3mo ago
Yay for fracking!

Yay for natural gas!

zackkatz•3mo ago
Unfortunately (and unbelievably!), Massachusetts still burns trash.

> There are more than 100 municipal waste combustion facilities in operation across the United States. Five of these are located in Massachusetts.

https://www.mass.gov/guides/municipal-waste-combustors

jcranmer•3mo ago
What's wrong with burning trash? It means there's much less material to send to landfills, plus it's one of the most economical ways to recycle metal from household waste streams.
jabl•3mo ago
'Old school' trash burning can produce quite nasty emissions. Not much of an issue with modern plants that burn at higher temperature and have some amount of flue gas filtering etc. Certainly beats landfilling and producing that same power by burning fossil fuels.
nielsbot•3mo ago
FTA:

> In Maine, a paper mill burns coal to power their own operations.

I guess burning coal is cheaper than buying power from the grid and installing solar would be a huge outlay? But this sentence just sounds crazy to me in 2025.