7 ms·

So what is the alternative here? Keep on using natural gas and ignore the effects it has on the environment and air quality? If California - one of the richest

by fy20 4y ago

So what is the alternative here? Keep on using natural gas and ignore the effects it has on the environment and air quality? If California - one of the richest areas in the world, which for the most part has a very mild climate - cannot switch away from natural gas, how is anyone else expected to?

ars 4y ago
Yes, keep using natural gas. At least for now. As long as 38% of electricity is being generated from natural gas, banning natural gas usage in homes is silly. Heat pumps at least help, but simply replacing with electric water heater and electric stoves actually hurts the environment more!
- nullc 4y ago
  Almost all at-home gas usage is after the sun has gone down, as a result the vast majority of the electricity used for the alternative would be generated from natural gas not just 38%.
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  >As long as 38% of electricity is being generated from natural gas, banning natural gas usage in homes is silly. Generating electricity in a large gas power plant, transmitting that electricity over vast differences, and then turning that electricity into heat, motive power, or light is much, MUCH **MUUUUUUUCH** more efficient than piping gas all over the place and burning the gas in homes. By, like, a lot. With gas burners the vast majority of energy is wasted, blasted out into the ambient air. In a turbine it is almost all turned into whatever is desired. Once at the home immersed heating elements or inductive elements turn most of the electricity into what is desired. Transmission losses are irrelevantly small compared to the astronomically huge increases in efficiency of the endpoints. Same goes for cars. Even if power plants used gasoline, which they don’t, it would be more efficient to burn the gasoline to generate electricity in huge generators, transmit the electricity a thousand miles, and use it to charge batteries in EVs. If a house doesn’t have the capacity to switch to electric, subsidize improvements. If the grid can’t handle it, fix it. Don’t just throw up your hands and go “well we tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!”
  - ars 4y ago
    That is absolutely not true! Greater than 85% of the heat generated in a water heater, and 95% in a boiler is captured. For electricity it's closer to 60%. Your "vast majority" is completely backwards. Your info is utterly wrong about natural gas efficiency. > Don’t just throw up your hands and go “well we tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!” That's better than doing things that are known to be worse. Like electric water heaters.
    - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
      Whoever told you electric water heaters are 60% was either mistaken or a gas lobbyist. The minimum efficiency for electric water heaters, required by federal law, is 90%. Electric heat pump water heaters have efficiency ratings in excess of 100%, often over 200% when measured by the same standard as “traditional” heaters. https://smarterhouse.org/water-heating/replacing-your-water-heater https://smarterhouse.org/water-heating/replacing-your-water-...
      - ars 4y ago
        The efficiency of an electric plant is 60%. Many are as low as 45%. You have a serious blind spot, or wilful ignorance about natural gas vs electricity. A natural gas water heater easily eclipses any electric one. A heat pump water heater just barely is better, in some, warm climates, and only if you barely use water (their recovery rate is so low they basically only work in 2 person households). For most people it is NOT better.
        rocket_surgeron 4y ago
        Ah I see you googled "efficiency of a gas power plant" and ran with the first result. Excellent! The efficiencies of gas power plants are not measured in the same way as water heaters and the two numbers are not comparable. It is also not because turbines generate more power. They do, but most vessel's speed is limited by physics, not the amount of oomph they can put into the screws. Think of it this way: if gas turbines were less efficient that boilers, why has every navy on the entire planet moved away from boilers? It ain't because maintenance is easier or costs are lower with turbines, that's for sure. Gas turbines compress the gas. They are much more efficient than dribbling gas out of an orifice at 1 ATM and getting a nice blue flame out of it. Also, good job ignoring the fact that you were wrong about water heater efficiency and then dismissing my correction and then immediately changing the thrust of your argument. It warms my heart to see that people never change. Finally, your information about heat pumps is extremely outdated, from the 80s or 90s, I'm assuming you're older and don't keep up with technological developments? (or are an oil and gas lobbyist)
- Dagger2 4y ago
  It's not silly -- the long term goal is to stop burning natural gas completely, and we can't do that unless we stop burning it.

by fy20 4y ago

ars 4y ago

Yes, keep using natural gas. At least for now. As long as 38% of electricity is being generated from natural gas, banning natural gas usage in homes is silly. Heat pumps at least help, but simply replacing with electric water heater and electric stoves actually hurts the environment more!

nullc 4y ago
Almost all at-home gas usage is after the sun has gone down, as a result the vast majority of the electricity used for the alternative would be generated from natural gas not just 38%.
rocket_surgeron 4y ago
>As long as 38% of electricity is being generated from natural gas, banning natural gas usage in homes is silly. Generating electricity in a large gas power plant, transmitting that electricity over vast differences, and then turning that electricity into heat, motive power, or light is much, MUCH **MUUUUUUUCH** more efficient than piping gas all over the place and burning the gas in homes. By, like, a lot. With gas burners the vast majority of energy is wasted, blasted out into the ambient air. In a turbine it is almost all turned into whatever is desired. Once at the home immersed heating elements or inductive elements turn most of the electricity into what is desired. Transmission losses are irrelevantly small compared to the astronomically huge increases in efficiency of the endpoints. Same goes for cars. Even if power plants used gasoline, which they don’t, it would be more efficient to burn the gasoline to generate electricity in huge generators, transmit the electricity a thousand miles, and use it to charge batteries in EVs. If a house doesn’t have the capacity to switch to electric, subsidize improvements. If the grid can’t handle it, fix it. Don’t just throw up your hands and go “well we tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!”
- ars 4y ago
  That is absolutely not true! Greater than 85% of the heat generated in a water heater, and 95% in a boiler is captured. For electricity it's closer to 60%. Your "vast majority" is completely backwards. Your info is utterly wrong about natural gas efficiency. > Don’t just throw up your hands and go “well we tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!” That's better than doing things that are known to be worse. Like electric water heaters.
  - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
    Whoever told you electric water heaters are 60% was either mistaken or a gas lobbyist. The minimum efficiency for electric water heaters, required by federal law, is 90%. Electric heat pump water heaters have efficiency ratings in excess of 100%, often over 200% when measured by the same standard as “traditional” heaters. https://smarterhouse.org/water-heating/replacing-your-water-heater https://smarterhouse.org/water-heating/replacing-your-water-...
    - ars 4y ago
      The efficiency of an electric plant is 60%. Many are as low as 45%. You have a serious blind spot, or wilful ignorance about natural gas vs electricity. A natural gas water heater easily eclipses any electric one. A heat pump water heater just barely is better, in some, warm climates, and only if you barely use water (their recovery rate is so low they basically only work in 2 person households). For most people it is NOT better.
      - rocket_surgeron 4y ago
        Ah I see you googled "efficiency of a gas power plant" and ran with the first result. Excellent! The efficiencies of gas power plants are not measured in the same way as water heaters and the two numbers are not comparable. It is also not because turbines generate more power. They do, but most vessel's speed is limited by physics, not the amount of oomph they can put into the screws. Think of it this way: if gas turbines were less efficient that boilers, why has every navy on the entire planet moved away from boilers? It ain't because maintenance is easier or costs are lower with turbines, that's for sure. Gas turbines compress the gas. They are much more efficient than dribbling gas out of an orifice at 1 ATM and getting a nice blue flame out of it. Also, good job ignoring the fact that you were wrong about water heater efficiency and then dismissing my correction and then immediately changing the thrust of your argument. It warms my heart to see that people never change. Finally, your information about heat pumps is extremely outdated, from the 80s or 90s, I'm assuming you're older and don't keep up with technological developments? (or are an oil and gas lobbyist)
Dagger2 4y ago
It's not silly -- the long term goal is to stop burning natural gas completely, and we can't do that unless we stop burning it.