3 ms·

Unless you live nearby nuclear plant and your electricity is dirt cheap - this is awful stupid solution. On account that 1. we’re still far away from scalable

Unless you live nearby nuclear plant and your electricity is dirt cheap - this is awful stupid solution. On account that 1. we’re still far away from scalable and economically viable clean energy solutions 2. Natural gas is as clean as natural resources can be I wish there were someone with balls and physics degree to ban this decision.

sterlind 5y ago
Specifically, as I recall from the Technology Connections video on space heaters, transmission losses mean that electric heating is less energy-efficient than burning the gas yourself, since most power comes from gas and coal. Solar doesn't work well in winter and at night (without energy storage anyway), and wind isn't reliable. If you lived next to nuclear power though, electrical heating would beat gas. Between those two it's a mix. So these sorts of decisions should be based on whether your mains is cleaner than gas, factoring in transmission efficiency and seasonal production/load.
jabl 5y ago
Well, I have a PhD in physics, and I think this is a good decision (not that I could ban it if I thought otherwise). Practically all serious decarbonization plans revolve around decarbonizing (and yes, scaling up) electricity production, and then using that clean electricity to decarbonize transportation, heating, some industrial processes etc. Cleaning up the electrical grid is underway. Much too slowly, and with some extremely regrettable setbacks like shutting down functioning nuclear power plants, but still progressing. A major problem in this transition is that retrofitting existing infrastructure is expensive and time-consuming, particularly if it means replacing stuff before EoL. The least we can do is not building more of the wrong kind of infrastructure, which is exactly what this ban achieves.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  OP’s point is about costs and affordability. PhD in physics is kind of irrelevant here.
- foxhill 5y ago
  changes at the individual’s level like this are meaningless on the scale at which carbon emission is occurring. for example, you could switch off every car, truck, boat, plane, train, ambulance, motorbike, etc. and you would reduce carbon emissions by less than 20%. _all_ residential usage (including electricity created by fossil fuels) by 10%. [1] alternatively, you could switch off carbon production across all of the EU and the US. all of it. you’d cut global CO2 emissions by %15 (for the US) and ~9%. [2] climate change is real and man-made. we need to tackle the actual causes of it, rather than make individuals lives harder: i’ve used many induction/electric cookers and they all _suck_. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector [2]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
- aristofun 5y ago
  Well, I got PhD in physics too. And especially i dealt with thermodynamics a little bit. And you’re some how ommitting the fact that all available so called clean sources are not even close in energy density, let alone energy production and delivery costs, to traditional sources. The difference is so dramatical, it would basically mean - we should go to stone age economically speaking to allow full replacement of energy to “green” ones. Which means basically we’re shooting in our own legs! Because weaker economies and poorer people are tend to make ecological situation worse rather than better in all Yes, there are some countries so rich and developed (or with unique weather conditions), they can afford partial replacement, just for the sake of the ecology. But I doubt US has already solved all major problems to afford such an expensive move. This is for starter: https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK8_Layton_EnergyDensities.ashx https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK... Please stop spreading such a nonsense and consider all implications if you call yourself a PhD In particular: > revolve around decarbonizing (and yes, scaling up) electricity production In general, this scaling is in 2021 near impossible or extremely costly at best, from pure thermodynamical point of view

sterlind 5y ago

Specifically, as I recall from the Technology Connections video on space heaters, transmission losses mean that electric heating is less energy-efficient than burning the gas yourself, since most power comes from gas and coal. Solar doesn't work well in winter and at night (without energy storage anyway), and wind isn't reliable. If you lived next to nuclear power though, electrical heating would beat gas. Between those two it's a mix. So these sorts of decisions should be based on whether your mains is cleaner than gas, factoring in transmission efficiency and seasonal production/load.

jabl 5y ago

Well, I have a PhD in physics, and I think this is a good decision (not that I could ban it if I thought otherwise). Practically all serious decarbonization plans revolve around decarbonizing (and yes, scaling up) electricity production, and then using that clean electricity to decarbonize transportation, heating, some industrial processes etc. Cleaning up the electrical grid is underway. Much too slowly, and with some extremely regrettable setbacks like shutting down functioning nuclear power plants, but still progressing. A major problem in this transition is that retrofitting existing infrastructure is expensive and time-consuming, particularly if it means replacing stuff before EoL. The least we can do is not building more of the wrong kind of infrastructure, which is exactly what this ban achieves.

systemvoltage 5y ago
OP’s point is about costs and affordability. PhD in physics is kind of irrelevant here.
foxhill 5y ago
changes at the individual’s level like this are meaningless on the scale at which carbon emission is occurring. for example, you could switch off every car, truck, boat, plane, train, ambulance, motorbike, etc. and you would reduce carbon emissions by less than 20%. _all_ residential usage (including electricity created by fossil fuels) by 10%. [1] alternatively, you could switch off carbon production across all of the EU and the US. all of it. you’d cut global CO2 emissions by %15 (for the US) and ~9%. [2] climate change is real and man-made. we need to tackle the actual causes of it, rather than make individuals lives harder: i’ve used many induction/electric cookers and they all _suck_. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector [2]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
aristofun 5y ago
Well, I got PhD in physics too. And especially i dealt with thermodynamics a little bit. And you’re some how ommitting the fact that all available so called clean sources are not even close in energy density, let alone energy production and delivery costs, to traditional sources. The difference is so dramatical, it would basically mean - we should go to stone age economically speaking to allow full replacement of energy to “green” ones. Which means basically we’re shooting in our own legs! Because weaker economies and poorer people are tend to make ecological situation worse rather than better in all Yes, there are some countries so rich and developed (or with unique weather conditions), they can afford partial replacement, just for the sake of the ecology. But I doubt US has already solved all major problems to afford such an expensive move. This is for starter: https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK8_Layton_EnergyDensities.ashx https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK... Please stop spreading such a nonsense and consider all implications if you call yourself a PhD In particular: > revolve around decarbonizing (and yes, scaling up) electricity production In general, this scaling is in 2021 near impossible or extremely costly at best, from pure thermodynamical point of view