4 ms·

How is an all-electric infrastructure “less fragile”? I don’t see any advantage for the end user. The only thing that works during a power outage is the gas sto

How is an all-electric infrastructure “less fragile”? I don’t see any advantage for the end user. The only thing that works during a power outage is the gas stove. Regarding power generation, gas is cheap and plentiful and gas power plants are much easier to build than nuclear. Nuclear takes years to get regulatory approval. Anyway, no one’s building nuclear. Germany closed down their last three nuclear plants, for some reason, and California would love to close their last nuclear plant but simply can’t.

realusername 3y ago
You forgot one small thing, there's two orders of magnitude more emissions with gas plants which makes this technology unsuitable for any future development, it's basically legacy, regardless of what you think of nuclear.
- freeflight 3y ago
  Afaik on an international level there's been a somewhat universal consent that natural gas is the "transition fossil fuel of choice" [0], due to being the fossil fuel with the lowest emissions. It also has the added bonus that gas infrastructure can realistically be retooled for green hydrogen, and related products. [0] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-energy-transitions https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-energy...
  - realusername 3y ago
    I don't share this opinion personally, it would be only two times worse, it could be considered but at 50 to 100 times worse than non fossil tech, it's just not worth investing. Additionally to these environmental problems, it's one of most expensive infrastructure-wise and suffers from its storage problems, the list of potential providers is also an issue in Europe as seen during the Ukraine war (and it's not like Qatar, Algeria or Azerbaijan are better than Russia)
    - freeflight 3y ago
      > I don't share this opinion personally, it would be only two times worse, it could be considered but at 50 to 100 times worse than non fossil tech, it's just not worth investing. This ain't about investments for the long term, it's about having a transition fuel into fully renewable, and that is needed for any realistic approach to the problem. As the fossil fuel reliance doesn't only extend to the energy sector, but also manufacturing industries, where hydrocarbons, as a resource, are responsible for pretty much everything that defines modern life. [0] > Additionally to these environmental problems, it's one of most expensive infrastructure-wise The infrastructure is expensive, but it's also the only existing energy infrastructure which can realistically be retooled for renewable replacement through green hydrogen. Now you can point out how hydrogen has also expensive infrastructure and even worse storage problems, which is true. But as of right now, green hydrogen is the only plausible way to wean ourselves off our fossil fuel dependence as a manufacturing resource [1]. It's a dimension to this way too few people have on their radar, as most of the public debate is solely centered on electricity generation from fossil fuels, when that's actually the easiest problem to fix with renewables. But the dependencies on fossil fuels as manufacturing resource, fixing those is a much bigger and involved task than making electricity grids green and renewable. [0] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20Infographic.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products... [1] https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer/wissenschaftspolitik/Positionen/2019-10-a-hydrogen-roadmap-for-germany.pdf https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer...
      - realusername 3y ago
        > This ain't about investments for the long term, it's about having a transition fuel into fully renewable, and that is needed for any realistic approach to the problem. Gas cannot be considered for a transition because of it's very high emissions, diplomatic issues and high infrastructure costs. It's a very polluting tech which should stay back in the 20th century along petrol. The stability problems of renewables must be solved first to be adopted, in a better way, burning fossil fuels when they do not work ain't one. > Now you can point out how hydrogen has also expensive infrastructure and even worse storage problems, which is true. But as of right now, green hydrogen is the only plausible way to wean ourselves off our fossil fuel dependence as a manufacturing resource [1]. The whole cycle has disastrous efficiency with 70% loss, as it is now, hydrogen storage isn't that useful until we invent some better tech. There's some use for it of course but that's not a large scale solution by any means.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Gas is cheap except when it isn’t. If you are a European depending on cheap natural gas from Russia, well, a simple war with Ukraine could be enough to shut you off.
8note 3y ago
Gas is cheap because you're externalizing costs, and have the government subsidizing it. The electric stuff works if you provide electricity to it. That doesn't have to be grid elecetricity
theshrike79 3y ago
> How is an all-electric infrastructure “less fragile”? I can generate electricity at home with off the shelf parts. I can also store respectable amounts of it with stuff I can buy off the shelf. Electricity generation can also be distributed easily, you can have multiple small power plants around the grid. Gas needs to be centrally pumped out of the ground, processed, pressurised and fed into pipes. There is no practical way for a normal home to make enough of it at home.

realusername 3y ago

You forgot one small thing, there's two orders of magnitude more emissions with gas plants which makes this technology unsuitable for any future development, it's basically legacy, regardless of what you think of nuclear.

freeflight 3y ago
Afaik on an international level there's been a somewhat universal consent that natural gas is the "transition fossil fuel of choice" [0], due to being the fossil fuel with the lowest emissions. It also has the added bonus that gas infrastructure can realistically be retooled for green hydrogen, and related products. [0] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-energy-transitions https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-energy...
- realusername 3y ago
  I don't share this opinion personally, it would be only two times worse, it could be considered but at 50 to 100 times worse than non fossil tech, it's just not worth investing. Additionally to these environmental problems, it's one of most expensive infrastructure-wise and suffers from its storage problems, the list of potential providers is also an issue in Europe as seen during the Ukraine war (and it's not like Qatar, Algeria or Azerbaijan are better than Russia)
  - freeflight 3y ago
    > I don't share this opinion personally, it would be only two times worse, it could be considered but at 50 to 100 times worse than non fossil tech, it's just not worth investing. This ain't about investments for the long term, it's about having a transition fuel into fully renewable, and that is needed for any realistic approach to the problem. As the fossil fuel reliance doesn't only extend to the energy sector, but also manufacturing industries, where hydrocarbons, as a resource, are responsible for pretty much everything that defines modern life. [0] > Additionally to these environmental problems, it's one of most expensive infrastructure-wise The infrastructure is expensive, but it's also the only existing energy infrastructure which can realistically be retooled for renewable replacement through green hydrogen. Now you can point out how hydrogen has also expensive infrastructure and even worse storage problems, which is true. But as of right now, green hydrogen is the only plausible way to wean ourselves off our fossil fuel dependence as a manufacturing resource [1]. It's a dimension to this way too few people have on their radar, as most of the public debate is solely centered on electricity generation from fossil fuels, when that's actually the easiest problem to fix with renewables. But the dependencies on fossil fuels as manufacturing resource, fixing those is a much bigger and involved task than making electricity grids green and renewable. [0] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20Infographic.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/Products... [1] https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer/wissenschaftspolitik/Positionen/2019-10-a-hydrogen-roadmap-for-germany.pdf https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/de/ueber-fraunhofer...
    - realusername 3y ago
      > This ain't about investments for the long term, it's about having a transition fuel into fully renewable, and that is needed for any realistic approach to the problem. Gas cannot be considered for a transition because of it's very high emissions, diplomatic issues and high infrastructure costs. It's a very polluting tech which should stay back in the 20th century along petrol. The stability problems of renewables must be solved first to be adopted, in a better way, burning fossil fuels when they do not work ain't one. > Now you can point out how hydrogen has also expensive infrastructure and even worse storage problems, which is true. But as of right now, green hydrogen is the only plausible way to wean ourselves off our fossil fuel dependence as a manufacturing resource [1]. The whole cycle has disastrous efficiency with 70% loss, as it is now, hydrogen storage isn't that useful until we invent some better tech. There's some use for it of course but that's not a large scale solution by any means.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Gas is cheap except when it isn’t. If you are a European depending on cheap natural gas from Russia, well, a simple war with Ukraine could be enough to shut you off.

8note 3y ago

Gas is cheap because you're externalizing costs, and have the government subsidizing it. The electric stuff works if you provide electricity to it. That doesn't have to be grid elecetricity

theshrike79 3y ago

> How is an all-electric infrastructure “less fragile”? I can generate electricity at home with off the shelf parts. I can also store respectable amounts of it with stuff I can buy off the shelf. Electricity generation can also be distributed easily, you can have multiple small power plants around the grid. Gas needs to be centrally pumped out of the ground, processed, pressurised and fed into pipes. There is no practical way for a normal home to make enough of it at home.