5 ms·

I assume the goal here is to eliminate the expensive and leaky natural gas delivery network entirely: nobody is going to build something that complicated just s

I assume the goal here is to eliminate the expensive and leaky natural gas delivery network entirely: nobody is going to build something that complicated just so a few foodies can make stir fry (and people who really care can purchase it in bottled form.) So any world where the LNG delivery network exists is going to be one where it’s used for heating. Getting to CO2 net zero involves moving those applications entirely to non-fossil electricity.

MrFoof 5y ago
> I assume the goal here is to eliminate the expensive and leaky natural gas delivery network entirely: nobody is going to build something that complicated just so a few foodies can make stir fry (and people who really care can purchase it in bottled form.) There are inductive surfaces explicitly designed for woks, with a very deep, concave "bowl" to accommodate the wok. I know two families (both Thai) that have bought them with zero regret and no complaints. Not cheap and certainly niche, but they do work as expected. UPDATE: There are also adapter rings designed to work with woks. These aren't "half-assed, maybe they work" items. They are made for commercial kitchens, as in actual restaurants. Restaurants don't pay Gaggenau for hoping something works and doesn't disappoint customers -- they pay them because it does.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  That's great to hear! It's still legal in restaurants so less rush, but good to know.
romwell 5y ago
>Getting to CO2 net zero involves moving those applications entirely to non-fossil electricity. The necessary and sufficient condition for that is the cost of electric heating to consumer being lower than the cost of gas heating in both short and long term (i.e., a 5-year subsidy isn't it). This requires a significant reshaping of our electricity generation. Everything else is a band-aid on an axe wound. A federal tax on burning natural gas can make that shift happen, but will hit the poor people. Finally, again, you can't shift to non-fossil electricity because you don't get to choose which electricity you shift to. As is, you're just going to burn more gas in a different place. The benefits of this rearrangement aren't obvious to me.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  It's more efficient to burn gas to make electricity (45% efficient), transport it over the grid (95%), and then run a heat pump (250 - 600% efficient) than it is to burn the gas for heat (80 - 95% efficient). And renewable electricity is cheaper than gas electricity, if it is available.

MrFoof 5y ago

> I assume the goal here is to eliminate the expensive and leaky natural gas delivery network entirely: nobody is going to build something that complicated just so a few foodies can make stir fry (and people who really care can purchase it in bottled form.) There are inductive surfaces explicitly designed for woks, with a very deep, concave "bowl" to accommodate the wok. I know two families (both Thai) that have bought them with zero regret and no complaints. Not cheap and certainly niche, but they do work as expected. UPDATE: There are also adapter rings designed to work with woks. These aren't "half-assed, maybe they work" items. They are made for commercial kitchens, as in actual restaurants. Restaurants don't pay Gaggenau for hoping something works and doesn't disappoint customers -- they pay them because it does.

Ericson2314 5y ago
That's great to hear! It's still legal in restaurants so less rush, but good to know.

romwell 5y ago

>Getting to CO2 net zero involves moving those applications entirely to non-fossil electricity. The necessary and sufficient condition for that is the cost of electric heating to consumer being lower than the cost of gas heating in both short and long term (i.e., a 5-year subsidy isn't it). This requires a significant reshaping of our electricity generation. Everything else is a band-aid on an axe wound. A federal tax on burning natural gas can make that shift happen, but will hit the poor people. Finally, again, you can't shift to non-fossil electricity because you don't get to choose which electricity you shift to. As is, you're just going to burn more gas in a different place. The benefits of this rearrangement aren't obvious to me.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
It's more efficient to burn gas to make electricity (45% efficient), transport it over the grid (95%), and then run a heat pump (250 - 600% efficient) than it is to burn the gas for heat (80 - 95% efficient). And renewable electricity is cheaper than gas electricity, if it is available.