6 ms·

*electricity . Gas is heavily used for heating , cooking & industrial uses (e.g. drying agriculture like hops, boilers etc). I raise this point since policym

by tonymet 5mo ago

*electricity . Gas is heavily used for heating , cooking & industrial uses (e.g. drying agriculture like hops, boilers etc). I raise this point since policymakers get confused and try to ban gas, only to realize how critical gas is for food & industrial applications that consumers enjoy after the fact.

PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
You're correct that this ought to say "electricity" and not "power". But I think you're wrong to think that gas is "critical" to any of the things you've listed. "Currently used" ... yes. "Not replaceable by electricity" ... no (unlike, e.g. air travel).
- tonymet 5mo ago
  explain the cost to replace a hop drying kiln with an electrical one, including the grid load.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
    I'm not going to do that. Electrical heat using heat pumps is cheaper than in-situ heating with any fossil fuel because (a) the base price per unit of energy is (or certainly can be) lower (b) the coefficient of performance is higher. There are obviously costs to changing heating systems. But that doesn't mean that a gas heating system cannot be replaced by an electrical one.
    - tonymet 5mo ago
      to me, it sounds unreasonable. Let’s say this project was your responsibility, would this argument be enough for your supervisor to approve it?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
        I'm not aware of anyone saying "we must replace all uses of non-electrical heat pump-based heating with an electrical version". My point, in response to the GGP (?) was the while e.g. gas heating may be in use now, it is not irreplaceable. This is quite different (right now, at least) for something like air transportation, where there is no feasible electrical solution. There is no "project" under discussion.
        tonymet 5mo ago
        you questioned "critical". It sounds like you mean that something is not critical if you can imagine replacing it. To me, "critical" means that it is critical to providing the service it provides. i.e. gas is critical to providing food, if the gas stops, the food stops. having a plan doesn't change that. I guess we differ on "critical".
        PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
        We don't disagree on that. We differ on what is critical. Clearly energy is critical for food production and drying lumber. But is gas critical? Well, gas is currently being used for those purposes, and if the gas stopped being available ... the effects would all differ based on the timeline for that. If the gas stopped overnight, sure, "the food stops". If the gas is announced as stopping over 5 or 10 years, the food will never stop. The difference there is not that "gas is critical", it's that "replacing gas will/would take time, and we can't do it immediately". Anything that stops the flow of energy to these processes will screw them up, but an ordered transition from energy source A to energy source B will not do that. Ergo, I conclude that it is not energy source A (gas) that is "critical", but rather energy supply and its orderly and intelligent management and planning.
- tonymet 5mo ago
  Good discussion thanks i got some new ideas out of it
tootie 5mo ago
Most of it can be electrified. NYC has banned gas hookups in new residential buildings (I live in one and it's great). Industrial electrification will never be 100% but I've seen estimates as high as 90%. It will take time and money but it will happen.
- tonymet 5mo ago
  how much time and money, and whether it’s worth the opportunity cost, is the entire question.
  - tootie 5mo ago
    If you're considering the total cost then you have to factor in the entire reason to electrify which is the environmental cost of continuing to burn dead organic matter. In that case, electrification is absolute bargain.
    - tonymet 5mo ago
      to what end?
      - tootie 5mo ago
        I just said. To reduce environmental impacts. A fully electric factory drawing power from a grid of renewables is cleaner, safer and more stable.
        tonymet 5mo ago
        so it sounds like "bear infinite prosperity / comfort / security costs for dubious environmental benefits" . Have you thought about how to weight the costs vs the benefits? Are you proposing being poorer, hungrier, more miserable, less comfortable in the hot & cold season for "clean energy". so how much are you willing to sacrifice for it?
        5mo ago

by tonymet 5mo ago

PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago

You're correct that this ought to say "electricity" and not "power". But I think you're wrong to think that gas is "critical" to any of the things you've listed. "Currently used" ... yes. "Not replaceable by electricity" ... no (unlike, e.g. air travel).

tonymet 5mo ago
explain the cost to replace a hop drying kiln with an electrical one, including the grid load.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
  I'm not going to do that. Electrical heat using heat pumps is cheaper than in-situ heating with any fossil fuel because (a) the base price per unit of energy is (or certainly can be) lower (b) the coefficient of performance is higher. There are obviously costs to changing heating systems. But that doesn't mean that a gas heating system cannot be replaced by an electrical one.
  - tonymet 5mo ago
    to me, it sounds unreasonable. Let’s say this project was your responsibility, would this argument be enough for your supervisor to approve it?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
      I'm not aware of anyone saying "we must replace all uses of non-electrical heat pump-based heating with an electrical version". My point, in response to the GGP (?) was the while e.g. gas heating may be in use now, it is not irreplaceable. This is quite different (right now, at least) for something like air transportation, where there is no feasible electrical solution. There is no "project" under discussion.
      - tonymet 5mo ago
        you questioned "critical". It sounds like you mean that something is not critical if you can imagine replacing it. To me, "critical" means that it is critical to providing the service it provides. i.e. gas is critical to providing food, if the gas stops, the food stops. having a plan doesn't change that. I guess we differ on "critical".
        PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
        We don't disagree on that. We differ on what is critical. Clearly energy is critical for food production and drying lumber. But is gas critical? Well, gas is currently being used for those purposes, and if the gas stopped being available ... the effects would all differ based on the timeline for that. If the gas stopped overnight, sure, "the food stops". If the gas is announced as stopping over 5 or 10 years, the food will never stop. The difference there is not that "gas is critical", it's that "replacing gas will/would take time, and we can't do it immediately". Anything that stops the flow of energy to these processes will screw them up, but an ordered transition from energy source A to energy source B will not do that. Ergo, I conclude that it is not energy source A (gas) that is "critical", but rather energy supply and its orderly and intelligent management and planning.
tonymet 5mo ago
Good discussion thanks i got some new ideas out of it

tootie 5mo ago

Most of it can be electrified. NYC has banned gas hookups in new residential buildings (I live in one and it's great). Industrial electrification will never be 100% but I've seen estimates as high as 90%. It will take time and money but it will happen.

tonymet 5mo ago
how much time and money, and whether it’s worth the opportunity cost, is the entire question.
- tootie 5mo ago
  If you're considering the total cost then you have to factor in the entire reason to electrify which is the environmental cost of continuing to burn dead organic matter. In that case, electrification is absolute bargain.
  - tonymet 5mo ago
    to what end?
    - tootie 5mo ago
      I just said. To reduce environmental impacts. A fully electric factory drawing power from a grid of renewables is cleaner, safer and more stable.
      - tonymet 5mo ago
        so it sounds like "bear infinite prosperity / comfort / security costs for dubious environmental benefits" . Have you thought about how to weight the costs vs the benefits? Are you proposing being poorer, hungrier, more miserable, less comfortable in the hot & cold season for "clean energy". so how much are you willing to sacrifice for it?
        5mo ago