Solar is an excellent replacement for home heating oil during the Michigan winters.
The vast majority of people in Michigan are already connected to an extremely efficient distribution network for electricity. The marginal cost of delivering additional energy through this network does not round to zero, it is zero. Meanwhile heating oil is delivered by trucks with a large cost in depreciation, labor, and fuel (further fossil fuels burnt in support of a system which was designed to make economic sense with <$10 oil). Whereas domestically produced oil can never drop below $40-50 a (marginal) barrel at the refinery, and imported oil never realistically below $30 + the cost of fighting forever wars for resources, there is a clear and feasible convergence of the marginal cost of solar energy generated in the Southwest US to $0. All this would make solar a viable replacement even without the role of heat pumps, which reduce the raw energy cost of heating with solar to around 20% of that of burning fuel.
I live in Michigan. I have a 5.9kwh solar array. Spring/fall, I can produce over 40kwh/day. Summer heat lowers my production to upper 30-40kwh.
January 2021, I produced 197kwh the entire month.
I know this discussion is focused on heating. But from an electric vehicle perspective; 197kwh is not that much. In the winter, I don't think it would be enough electricity for a homes electric needs + EV or electric heat.
I can make 1MWh over 1 month in the summer. Basically, Michigan has short days in the winter. Snow does sit on top of the solar array until it melts, which robs me of production during sunny winter days.
It wouldn't be impossible to use solar to replace heating oil in Michigan, and the over capacity installed to satisfy winter demand could serve as a "peaker plant" during the warm summer months.
While I know renewables have decreased in costs, I think the costs related to building overcapacity is a hindrance.
It's not that hard to store solar power as Hydrogen and turn that back into electricity. The end-to-end efficiency is not as good as for batteries, but building something that can hold Hydrogen for a few months is cheaper than building the equivalent amount of batteries.
It's true that hydrogen is more practical for storing energy for months, but I think that storing energy for a few hours each day between daytime and nighttime (and transporting it from hot, sunny states to freezing, dark ones) is the important problem to solve.
You need to solve both problems to reach 100% renewables, but doing in the order of demand side improvements, short term storage and then long term storage is probably the cheapest way to proceed.
Did you miss the part where Michigan is already connected by a transcontinental electricity distribution grid to places like Las Vegas (8 average hours of sunlight in January, average temp 9C in January)?
That’s a gross oversimplification of reality - to the point of outright falsehood.
Michigan can’t get any electricity from Nevada today - they are on different grid ties, and there would need to be a ton of upgrades in the DC-DC and VFT ties between them to get that significant a chunk of electricity sent the ~2000 miles from Nevada to Detroit.
That's the job of utilities, not individual consumers.
Look, if the government wants to migrate utilities away from gas for heating and replace that with something else, the way you to do that is to have the government build, or contract out to build, the something else that is just as reliable and just as affordable, and then when that is in place, you work with the utility to switch over to the new thing and then retire the old thing. This is called a migration.
Shocking, I know.
The way you don't do it is to adopt some neoliberal obsession with turning everything into a market where end users trying to heat their homes are facing higher prices, and the hope is that these higher prices just cause the utility to transition to something else through the magic of markets.
That's not what markets are good at. Funding big infrastructure projects and coordinating the replacement of one infrastructure with another is the responsibility of government, not markets.
We didn't build our hydro and nuclear capacity by relying on the magic of the free market. We had a planned decision to build this infrastructure as a result of public need, and so we built it, and then the utilities hooked up to it, and the end user got power. We didn't build the interstate highway system by relying on free markets either. When people want to deploy subways, the solution is to build subways, not just tax gas and hope subways just spring up out of the market.
Telling individual homeowners "Well, there is wind power technology out there" is eco-sadism.
It is taking things offline or penalizing them instead of having replacements provided, and we just hope that the penalties will cause replacements to spring up.
This is faith-based energy policy. It is not effective governance, and it is not politically sustainable.
The vast majority of people in Michigan are already connected to an extremely efficient distribution network for electricity. The marginal cost of delivering additional energy through this network does not round to zero, it is zero. Meanwhile heating oil is delivered by trucks with a large cost in depreciation, labor, and fuel (further fossil fuels burnt in support of a system which was designed to make economic sense with <$10 oil). Whereas domestically produced oil can never drop below $40-50 a (marginal) barrel at the refinery, and imported oil never realistically below $30 + the cost of fighting forever wars for resources, there is a clear and feasible convergence of the marginal cost of solar energy generated in the Southwest US to $0. All this would make solar a viable replacement even without the role of heat pumps, which reduce the raw energy cost of heating with solar to around 20% of that of burning fuel.