4 ms·
Why would you subsidize gas, of all type of energy we could subsidize?
by jeromegv 4y ago
Why would you subsidize gas, of all type of energy we could subsidize?
- gruez 4y agoI wouldn't, but it seems somewhat plausible to do it if you really care about costs.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y agoSolar and wind costs much less than gas, and we can still increase the % of intermittent energy sources by a lot before we actually need to install stationary storage. Of course people will oppose gas when we have a better and cheaper alternative.
- gruez 4y agoHow does the intermittent nature of solar/wind work for the usages described in this thread (ie. heating, hot water, cooking)? Heating need is anti-correlated with renewables, because it's used at night. I suspect the same applies to hot water (spike of showers in the morning/night), although it's less of an issue because you can save up hot water. Cooking is concentrated around certain time periods (ie. breakfast/lunch/dinner), so that's also a bad fit for renewables.
- hedora 4y agoThe coefficient of power of current heat pumps is over 4 in most operating environments. It doesn't solve the storage problem, but it increases the price differential between electric and fossil fuels. That differential could be used for batteries, solar water heating, etc, etc. Cooking off battery and using a heat pump water heater is pretty feasible at this point (feasible == cheaper than fossil fuels). Heating the house and charging vehicles are the big energy hogs. Unfortunately, they're also big polluters.
- bombcar 4y agoBecause the problem is literally people burning coal at home for heat, and burning natural gas at home for heat is way less polluting, and if you price it right they'll jump at it. If instead you try to build solar or wind and provide electrical for heating, maybe some of the rich will do it, but most everyone else will continue to burn coal (or tires).
- danuker 4y agoNot necessarily subsidize gas. You can also tax coal for its special danger.