7 ms·

This relates to a difficult topic, which is: should modern civilization be 100% carbon neutral? Some things are inherently difficult to make electric, yet we n

This relates to a difficult topic, which is: should modern civilization be 100% carbon neutral? Some things are inherently difficult to make electric, yet we need them to have what we'd call a "modern civilization". Planes are the biggest one: there is a drive to use more trains instead of planes, but should we give that up? It is definitely a step backwards in civilization, as large parts of the world are now impossible to go to and from. Some people admonish flight tourism as hedonistic and say it harms the planet: but should people not be allowed to travel intercontinentally? Is that the world we want? I believe the investment in carbon capture and greenhouse gases abatement should be increased. Not just because we'll not meet our climate goals and need a way to clean our atmosphere, but because even if we do we still need some things that burn fossil fuels (possibly for hundreds of years). In that sense, if all of our energy grid was renewable, heavy industries didn't burn coal, and all cars were also electric, would it matter that we have gas stoves and other modern conveniences? Maybe not.

occz 4y ago
I don't think that this is relevant at all in the context of this discussion - electric cooking methods - particularly induction - are superior to gas in essentially every way, shape or form - barring the production of wok hei, which is why the article stresses that so much, while conveniently leaving out all the massive downsides of gas stoves. Gas stoves are also generally used by gas companies to get gas lines drawn into buildings, so that they can easily sell gas to the bigger consumer of gas - heating. And indeed, in this aspect too, gas is _vastly_ inferior to modern heating technologies such as heat pumps. There is no real convenience trade-off when it comes to gas. It's time for it to die, permanently.
- tompccs 4y ago
  Everything you have written is wrong. Gas is very efficient. If you have the choice of burning gas at a power station (which is how a lot of electricity is generated now a days) and piping it directly into people's homes for the end goal of generating heat, piping wins every time. The inefficiencies of converting gas to electricity and transporting that electricity are significant and well known. Additionally, I don't know how anyone who has cooked on gas and electric can claim electric is superior. I will grant that a very good electric (ie, induction) _might_ be superior to a very bad gas, but I have used a lot of examples of each and I would choose gas every time (and to demonstrate I am not ideological about this, I always prefer electric ovens over gas). Heat pumps are also a vastly overrated technology which only work for very well insulated houses with an HVAC system which keeps the rooms ventilated artificially. I am big on electrification - I'm a Tesla shareholder - but the carbon benefits of electric heating over gas are minute. The Green agenda should avoid battles where the perceived detriment to people's quality of life vastly exceeds the provable environmental benefit.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    > Gas is very efficient. The way my entire kitchen noticeably heats up from pan-searing anything says otherwise.
  - derriz 4y ago
    Burning gas on a stove to heat food is about 40% efficient. Induction is about 85% efficient. Modern CCGT is about 60% efficient. So converting the energy contained in natural gas into electricity in a large CCGT plant and then cooking with the electricity is more efficient than piping the gas to a home and burning it there. More importantly for me is that, you don't pollute your breathing air with the byproducts of combusting gas indoors in your home - particular nitrous oxides and fine particulates.
    - pirate787 4y ago
      My friend is just 36 and a chef. She has stage 4 lung cancer. I wonder how much her workplace particulate matter exposure played a role.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > Heat pumps are also a vastly overrated technology which only work for very well insulated houses with an HVAC system which keeps the rooms ventilated artificially. Well that's weird. I live in 1875 adobe house with no HVAC system other than my wall-mounted minisplits. The house is poorly insulated (adobe has high thermal mass but is a very poor insulator, plus lots of leaky windows and roof construction details). The heat pumps kept us warm during this last winter's 5F overnights.
  - jdmichal 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_source_heat_pump#In_cold_climates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_source_heat_pump#In_cold_c... A study by Natural Resources Canada found that cold climate air source heat pumps (CC-ASHPs) work in Canadian winters, based on testing in Ottawa (Ontario) in late December 2012 to early January 2013 using a ducted CC-ASHP. (The report does not explicitly state whether backup heat sources should be considered for temperatures below −30 °C. The record low for Ottawa is −36 °C.) The CC-ASHP provided 60% energy savings compared to natural gas (in energy units).[10] When considering energy efficiency in electricity generation however, more energy would be used with the CC-ASHP, relative to natural gas heating, in provinces or territories (Alberta, Nova Scotia, and the Northwest Territories) where coal-fired generation was the predominant method of electricity generation. (The energy savings in Saskatchewan were marginal. Other provinces use primarily hydroelectric and/or nuclear generation.) Despite the significant energy savings relative to gas in provinces not relying primarily on coal, the higher cost of electricity relative to natural gas (using 2012 retail prices in Ottawa, Ontario) made natural gas the less expensive energy source.
viraptor 4y ago
> there is a drive to use more trains instead of planes, but should we give that up? If you have good trains it's not giving things up. Apart from long distance travel HS trains are just better is almost every way.
marvin 4y ago
Civilization can and must be climate gas neutral. Can be accomplished through massive build-out of geological-time CO2 sequestering, financed with global taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and international agreements to the same effect. End-state will still have lots of economic processes that require releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, even new or novel ones. But these will be offset by the sequestering paid by their taxation. Taxes will shift greenhouse gas emissions to no-emission alternatives where that's practical and desirable, probably meaning most of them in the end.
imtringued 4y ago
I am convinced that fundamental changes are required in the economy for us to solve climate change. I recently watched a video about carbon offsets by growing trees and it is basically fraud. You know, using terra preta for soil improvement would generate basically infinite demand bio char which can then be sequestered into the soil. If you wanted to get carbon out of the atmosphere this would not only sequester carbon, it would also improve the soil and reduce the need for synthetics in conventional farming. There is no way this will happen. If we had the right economic system we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

occz 4y ago

I don't think that this is relevant at all in the context of this discussion - electric cooking methods - particularly induction - are superior to gas in essentially every way, shape or form - barring the production of wok hei, which is why the article stresses that so much, while conveniently leaving out all the massive downsides of gas stoves. Gas stoves are also generally used by gas companies to get gas lines drawn into buildings, so that they can easily sell gas to the bigger consumer of gas - heating. And indeed, in this aspect too, gas is _vastly_ inferior to modern heating technologies such as heat pumps. There is no real convenience trade-off when it comes to gas. It's time for it to die, permanently.

tompccs 4y ago
Everything you have written is wrong. Gas is very efficient. If you have the choice of burning gas at a power station (which is how a lot of electricity is generated now a days) and piping it directly into people's homes for the end goal of generating heat, piping wins every time. The inefficiencies of converting gas to electricity and transporting that electricity are significant and well known. Additionally, I don't know how anyone who has cooked on gas and electric can claim electric is superior. I will grant that a very good electric (ie, induction) _might_ be superior to a very bad gas, but I have used a lot of examples of each and I would choose gas every time (and to demonstrate I am not ideological about this, I always prefer electric ovens over gas). Heat pumps are also a vastly overrated technology which only work for very well insulated houses with an HVAC system which keeps the rooms ventilated artificially. I am big on electrification - I'm a Tesla shareholder - but the carbon benefits of electric heating over gas are minute. The Green agenda should avoid battles where the perceived detriment to people's quality of life vastly exceeds the provable environmental benefit.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  > Gas is very efficient. The way my entire kitchen noticeably heats up from pan-searing anything says otherwise.
- derriz 4y ago
  Burning gas on a stove to heat food is about 40% efficient. Induction is about 85% efficient. Modern CCGT is about 60% efficient. So converting the energy contained in natural gas into electricity in a large CCGT plant and then cooking with the electricity is more efficient than piping the gas to a home and burning it there. More importantly for me is that, you don't pollute your breathing air with the byproducts of combusting gas indoors in your home - particular nitrous oxides and fine particulates.
  - pirate787 4y ago
    My friend is just 36 and a chef. She has stage 4 lung cancer. I wonder how much her workplace particulate matter exposure played a role.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > Heat pumps are also a vastly overrated technology which only work for very well insulated houses with an HVAC system which keeps the rooms ventilated artificially. Well that's weird. I live in 1875 adobe house with no HVAC system other than my wall-mounted minisplits. The house is poorly insulated (adobe has high thermal mass but is a very poor insulator, plus lots of leaky windows and roof construction details). The heat pumps kept us warm during this last winter's 5F overnights.
- jdmichal 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_source_heat_pump#In_cold_climates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_source_heat_pump#In_cold_c... A study by Natural Resources Canada found that cold climate air source heat pumps (CC-ASHPs) work in Canadian winters, based on testing in Ottawa (Ontario) in late December 2012 to early January 2013 using a ducted CC-ASHP. (The report does not explicitly state whether backup heat sources should be considered for temperatures below −30 °C. The record low for Ottawa is −36 °C.) The CC-ASHP provided 60% energy savings compared to natural gas (in energy units).[10] When considering energy efficiency in electricity generation however, more energy would be used with the CC-ASHP, relative to natural gas heating, in provinces or territories (Alberta, Nova Scotia, and the Northwest Territories) where coal-fired generation was the predominant method of electricity generation. (The energy savings in Saskatchewan were marginal. Other provinces use primarily hydroelectric and/or nuclear generation.) Despite the significant energy savings relative to gas in provinces not relying primarily on coal, the higher cost of electricity relative to natural gas (using 2012 retail prices in Ottawa, Ontario) made natural gas the less expensive energy source.

viraptor 4y ago

> there is a drive to use more trains instead of planes, but should we give that up? If you have good trains it's not giving things up. Apart from long distance travel HS trains are just better is almost every way.

marvin 4y ago

Civilization can and must be climate gas neutral. Can be accomplished through massive build-out of geological-time CO2 sequestering, financed with global taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and international agreements to the same effect. End-state will still have lots of economic processes that require releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, even new or novel ones. But these will be offset by the sequestering paid by their taxation. Taxes will shift greenhouse gas emissions to no-emission alternatives where that's practical and desirable, probably meaning most of them in the end.

imtringued 4y ago

I am convinced that fundamental changes are required in the economy for us to solve climate change. I recently watched a video about carbon offsets by growing trees and it is basically fraud. You know, using terra preta for soil improvement would generate basically infinite demand bio char which can then be sequestered into the soil. If you wanted to get carbon out of the atmosphere this would not only sequester carbon, it would also improve the soil and reduce the need for synthetics in conventional farming. There is no way this will happen. If we had the right economic system we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.