3 ms·

Did you know that almost 40% of NYC's electricity grid is powered by natural gas? Another 30% from nuclear and ~20% from hydroelectric. Since nuclear and hydr

Did you know that almost 40% of NYC's electricity grid is powered by natural gas? Another 30% from nuclear and ~20% from hydroelectric. Since nuclear and hydroelectric can't be immediately stepped up, what do you think is going to be increased to generate power for all these new electrical appliances that will be drawing power from the grid? The heat transfer and energy loss of electrical appliances generally makes them less efficient than natural gas appliances, thus actually increasing the amount of natural gas that will need to be burned to accommodate this policy. This is literally going to increase the amount of natural gas that needs to be burned to maintain existing cooking patterns. This policy and ones like it are why people can't take environmentalists seriously.

tcfhgj 3y ago
What can be stepped up fast is wind and solar energy. And a heat pump is superior to gas even if the grid consists 100% out of gas. Further, you don't build a building built for gas when have to switch to electricity in the future anyway when the grid is even cleaner.
- speakfreely 3y ago
  > What can be stepped up fast is wind and solar energy. I don't know who told you this. Can you point to any large city that is running on purely wind & solar right now? As far as I'm aware, there's not even a large regional city that has demonstrated this can work with current battery technology. I would be really happy to be wrong on this, but as of right now, it's not an option and we need to be realistic about that. "The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says nuclear power plants had a capacity factor of 92.6% in the US during 2022. This compares to 36.1% for wind energy and just 24.8% for solar photovoltaic technology. To a rough approximation, it takes three times as much wind capacity and four times as much solar to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear power plant over a given period. This is complicated by seasonality. Solar, for example, is particularly ineffective during the winter months when energy needs in the northern portion of the country are highest." [0] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
  - tcfhgj 3y ago
    You don't need to run 100% on solar and PV to cut emissions significantly using it Regarding seasons: in our country wind is strong when solar is weak and vice versa
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    > Can you point to any large city that is running on purely wind & solar right now? That wasn’t their claim at all, so it seems questionable to demand they prove this. It’s like if someone said “cheerios are good for the heart”, and you asked someone to demonstrate that nobody ever had a heart attack while eating cheerios. You’re challenging an exaggerated version of the claim that was made, not the actual claim.
    - speakfreely 3y ago
      > That wasn’t their claim at all, so it seems questionable to demand they prove this. That is a fair criticism.
  - plantain 3y ago
    Purely on wind & solar? Probably only islands. But major cities are getting close. Adelaide, Australia went from 100% carbon energy in 2007 to ~30% today, and looks to hit at a net 0% by 2028. https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1M https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1M
- pxx 3y ago
  Um. Aren't we talking about stoves? Heat pumps aren't usable for this application. Even in the furnace case you need fairly ideal numbers for the heat pump to overtake the loss of 50% you're taking just in the generation step. And I don't know what's up with your claim about solar and wind energy.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Induction cook tops are considerably more efficient at getting heat into the cookware then gas stoves are.
  - meetingthrower 3y ago
    No the law bans gas HEATING! All the comments in this thread are on the <1% use case.
bentlegen 3y ago
So because nuclear or other solutions can’t “immediately” be stepped up (debatable, but it doesn’t matter), we should not bother to create the circumstances in which they would become beneficial? This go-nowhere attitude and is why people can’t take fossil fuel apologists seriously.
- speakfreely 3y ago
  You mis-characterized me. I actually identify as a nuclear energy apologist. Nothing would make me more happy than to see nuclear energy sources being fast tracked.
  - bentlegen 3y ago
    I don’t think I’ve mischaracterized anything, unless you’re telling me that you didn’t mean to paint this effort as meaningless posturing by ineffective environmentalists that would only have negative results. If nothing would make you happier, make that point in your comment. “Maybe this will make a difference in 20 years” or “nuclear advancement is what we need” would completely change the tone.
vegetablepotpie 3y ago
To make the climate argument, while it’s true that methane is being used to generate electricity, and there are losses that come from transmitting electricity, switching to electricity overall reduces the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere. Because methane is 80 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, even small leaks of methane have an outsized impact. When methane leak rates exceed 2.7% of the amount burned [1], it has worse warming impacts than burning coal. Having a network of pipes going to individual residences will introduce many joints and fittings, all of which leak. Even behind the meter residences leak up to 1.3 % of what they burn [2]. Even if you were to burn methane to generate electricity, even if there are efficiency losses to generation and transmission, it’s better to send that methane to one destination to be burned, than to thousands just to prevent the potential for it to leak out into the atmosphere. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-leaks-erase-some-of-the-climate-benefits-of-natural-gas/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-leaks-era... [2] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707

tcfhgj 3y ago

What can be stepped up fast is wind and solar energy. And a heat pump is superior to gas even if the grid consists 100% out of gas. Further, you don't build a building built for gas when have to switch to electricity in the future anyway when the grid is even cleaner.

speakfreely 3y ago
> What can be stepped up fast is wind and solar energy. I don't know who told you this. Can you point to any large city that is running on purely wind & solar right now? As far as I'm aware, there's not even a large regional city that has demonstrated this can work with current battery technology. I would be really happy to be wrong on this, but as of right now, it's not an option and we need to be realistic about that. "The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says nuclear power plants had a capacity factor of 92.6% in the US during 2022. This compares to 36.1% for wind energy and just 24.8% for solar photovoltaic technology. To a rough approximation, it takes three times as much wind capacity and four times as much solar to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear power plant over a given period. This is complicated by seasonality. Solar, for example, is particularly ineffective during the winter months when energy needs in the northern portion of the country are highest." [0] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
- tcfhgj 3y ago
  You don't need to run 100% on solar and PV to cut emissions significantly using it Regarding seasons: in our country wind is strong when solar is weak and vice versa
- ncallaway 3y ago
  > Can you point to any large city that is running on purely wind & solar right now? That wasn’t their claim at all, so it seems questionable to demand they prove this. It’s like if someone said “cheerios are good for the heart”, and you asked someone to demonstrate that nobody ever had a heart attack while eating cheerios. You’re challenging an exaggerated version of the claim that was made, not the actual claim.
  - speakfreely 3y ago
    > That wasn’t their claim at all, so it seems questionable to demand they prove this. That is a fair criticism.
- plantain 3y ago
  Purely on wind & solar? Probably only islands. But major cities are getting close. Adelaide, Australia went from 100% carbon energy in 2007 to ~30% today, and looks to hit at a net 0% by 2028. https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1M https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1M
pxx 3y ago
Um. Aren't we talking about stoves? Heat pumps aren't usable for this application. Even in the furnace case you need fairly ideal numbers for the heat pump to overtake the loss of 50% you're taking just in the generation step. And I don't know what's up with your claim about solar and wind energy.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Induction cook tops are considerably more efficient at getting heat into the cookware then gas stoves are.
- meetingthrower 3y ago
  No the law bans gas HEATING! All the comments in this thread are on the <1% use case.

bentlegen 3y ago

So because nuclear or other solutions can’t “immediately” be stepped up (debatable, but it doesn’t matter), we should not bother to create the circumstances in which they would become beneficial? This go-nowhere attitude and is why people can’t take fossil fuel apologists seriously.

speakfreely 3y ago
You mis-characterized me. I actually identify as a nuclear energy apologist. Nothing would make me more happy than to see nuclear energy sources being fast tracked.
- bentlegen 3y ago
  I don’t think I’ve mischaracterized anything, unless you’re telling me that you didn’t mean to paint this effort as meaningless posturing by ineffective environmentalists that would only have negative results. If nothing would make you happier, make that point in your comment. “Maybe this will make a difference in 20 years” or “nuclear advancement is what we need” would completely change the tone.

vegetablepotpie 3y ago

To make the climate argument, while it’s true that methane is being used to generate electricity, and there are losses that come from transmitting electricity, switching to electricity overall reduces the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere. Because methane is 80 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, even small leaks of methane have an outsized impact. When methane leak rates exceed 2.7% of the amount burned [1], it has worse warming impacts than burning coal. Having a network of pipes going to individual residences will introduce many joints and fittings, all of which leak. Even behind the meter residences leak up to 1.3 % of what they burn [2]. Even if you were to burn methane to generate electricity, even if there are efficiency losses to generation and transmission, it’s better to send that methane to one destination to be burned, than to thousands just to prevent the potential for it to leak out into the atmosphere. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-leaks-erase-some-of-the-climate-benefits-of-natural-gas/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-leaks-era... [2] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707