Because number has to go up. Always. Forever. Unending.
The more infrastructure they lay and the more customers they connect, the harder to shut them down. The more bail-worthy they become.
Yeah they’re trying hard to achieve the “too big to kill” status, like shamu.
Shamu would have succumbed to a .308 to the brain pan. There ain’t shit that is “to big to be killed”, just those unwilling to do the killing.
Annnnnd this is exactly why we need the carbon tax.
Because we live in Canada and our design day heating energy requirement is typically far greater than our design day cooling energy requirement. Add in the fact that best pump efficiency falls way off at design day heating (to half or less of design day cooling) and you end up with equipment that may be able to do heating and cooling but is way oversized for cooling, so lots of people opt to save capital (and potentially maintenance) money by relying on gas heat for the coldest days.
Because water heating with heat pumps is currently garbage on the residential scale… the heat pump capacity on residential water heaters is quit low, which is fine for keeping the tank warm but not for dealing with a half decent draw, so they all include full electric capacity which means you need the service size and associated operating costs to go along with it. Commercial heat pump water heating isn’t much better, it may get better once CO2 or propane take off as a refrigerant here.
Because more and more buildings are putting in emergency generators, which require either natural gas, propane or fuel oil. One of those is significantly easisr to install and maintain than the other two.
I just had to buy a new gas furnace and air conditioner, so, with my mind on global warming, I asked the furnace guy what it would cost to put in a heat pump. He said he has put in quite a few, but the costs have gone way up. He also said that in our climate I would need an electric back-up furnace for winter because a heat pump loses efficiency quickly at temps below -15C. The cost was going to be around $30,000, compared to $15,000 for the new gas furnace and AC. Also, electricity in Ontario is an incredibly expensive way to heat, so that would be a big extra monthly cost in the winter. An in-ground geothermal system would be about $65,000, he said.
It isn’t hard to see why gas is still popular, and that it will continue to be far into the future unless we undertake some kind of national project to replace our fossil fuel infrastructure with nuclear for the needed electricity and then convert our cars and homes over to full electric.
Did you asking about getting a heat pump to run the AC coil above the gas furnace instead of just a regular outdoor AC unit? The cost difference in hardware is only a few hundred dollars at most (for same sized unit, maybe $500-$700 if you are going up a size to hear for longer into the winter), installation cost should be the same and while it doesn’t eliminate gas burining you can reduce it by probably 50% - 70%.
This is basically what I’m in the process if doing, except rather than a furnace replacement I’m only doing it to add AC because I currently don’t have AC on my furnace.
No, I didn’t know that was an option. Cool idea, though. No pun intended, but I’ll take it.
Although this might be accurate, what would be the true cost of gas if you removed all the subsidies and added the cost of fossil fueled warming from the continued GHG release? What will be the cost of gas if climate change really starts to pop and we undergo radically accelerated decarbonization? What is the projected cost of renewables + batteries + electric heating in 5, 10 or 20 years?
These are more relevant details regarding the building of infa that should be built to last, and is costed to last, for several decades.
Because water heating with heat pumps is currently garbage on the residential scale.
Also because we’re already stressing electric infrastructure with what we use now, and few plans to add capacity in any reasonable amount to deal with the massive increase in population, plus electric cars, AC during heat waves etc let alone home heating.
Gas is efficient for heating, and there’s plenty of other stuff we can and need to look at before we replace that.
Also because we’re already stressing electric infrastructure with what we use now
This is propaganda.
On the hottest day last week Ontario hyrdo demand was ~24000MW, last night it went as low as 12000MW. There is room to almost double the baseload in Ontario, with actually smart appliances and controls (not SmartTM shit) a ton of fossil fuel heating loads could be replaced with electric without needing any grid level upgrades.
Finally, someone that knows what the fuck they’re talking about. Heat pumps are fine in a lot of the world, but when you have to put a furnace in anyway because a heat pump can’t deal with actual cold winters, you might as well just have the furnace.
Yep, in Sask right now natural gas is about 1/7 the cost of electricity, which means at best a heat pump only costs about 2x as much to run as a modern gas furnace. Maybe as our grid transitions to renewables and carbon prices rise those costs will become even or shift towards benefiting heat pumps, but I suspect at this point you’re not going to hit break even over the typical life of a heat pump. Much more affordable to stick with gas for now, and maybe start moving to heat pumps 10 years from now. Same argument for water heaters, gas is going to be cheaper than a heat pump for most cases. Maybe new builds lean towards a heat pump because it doesn’t need venting which minimizes HVAC needs, and/or if a person has a solar system that minimizes their electricity costs.
Our power in Sask is dirty enough that burning gas in the home is better for the environment than using electricity for water tanks. 500% heat pumps would be better in theory, but they’re not good enough for our winters yet, and the financial costs still aren’t in their favour.
https://saskpower.com/our-power-future/our-electricity/electrical-system/where-your-power-comes-from
29% of the power being generated is coal as I type this comment.
Because money.
The boat salesman says you need a boat.
YOU pay for the infrastructure, YOU pay for the maintenance, YOU pay for the gas. Why would they stop now?
“Growth at any cost” is a great motto for corporations, and cancer.
Probably same reason as here in Australia.
The gas companies have managed to create a multifaceted cult where they’ve brainwashed people into thinking electricity is unclean (despite things like heat pumps being 500% efficient), unreliable and expensive.
Also, it helps that people who paid too much for their ICE cars are scared and they know that their cars will increasingly drop in value as people transition away from gas and fossil fuels.
I don’t see a lot of people worrying about their cars devaluing. Except for the recent blip, most cars devalued fast, and the cars that held value before didn’t retain it because of their utility.
Because eastern Canada still needs the oil subsidies from the Prairies.
Forestry just isn’t cutting it out there, and like it or not, the country needs money.
The problem is, they aren’t going anywhere. They’ll just funnel money to politicians to stop any attempt to stop them.
That’s great for climate goals, but can someone tell me how we’re supposed to heat our homes? Electricity?
- Better insulation.
- Heat pumps.
- By the time gas heating is eliminated, climate change will have solved that problem.
Climat change won’t magically remove heating needs. It will bring hotter summers, colder winters, bed weather etc.
Heat pumps sounds like a good way forward. I haven’t looked into the cost to replace a heater in a home, but I guess new homes could just have them installed by default.
What about natural gas use in home cooking/restaurants? Surely, you can’t just replace that easily.
EDIT: And what about heating water? I mean, natural gas is used for more than heating the space in a home.
Induction stovetops are fast, efficient, and safe. (but regular electric is fine as well)
Water heaters are similarly available in electric and heat pump configurations.
I have a 200v induction cooktop. My only complaint so far is that I don’t quite have as fine-grained control as I did with gas, but that doesn’t matter most of the time. It also isn’t heating up and around the pan. In any case, I have a portable casette gas stove if I really want to make Chinese in a wok with high heat and the flame coming up the sides.
My water heater is an eco-cute and does quite well for energy efficiency. It was a bit of a change coming back from instant on-demand gas water heaters, but it’s fine now that I’m used to it.
Surely you can. Modern electric stovetops use infrared radiation from a wire coil to heat cookware. The stovetop is covered with a ceramic that allows infrared radiation to pass through, and if you put something on it, it’ll absorb the radiation as heat. The technology is also scalable to industrial applications.
I’ll let Brown Jacket Man explain the principle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff04ecF9Dfw
(edit) My house has an electric water heater that was built in the Soviet Union. It uses a ~200-litre tank with a large heating element inside.
Those ceramic/glasstop ovens are shit. An old school coil will always be better, or modern induction.
Don’t confuse the old school glass flat tops with the induction ones. They use different methods and work very differently even though they look alike.
Meh they’re fine. Yes induction is better but they’re not shit.
Ceramic/glass top electric is shit. I’ve used gas and induction a fair amount, but at home I have a mid range priced electric ceramic and it’s terrible compared to the other two options.
Shitty modern electric stove tops use infrared radiation. Good modern electric stove tops are induction
And what about heating water?
A heat pump water heater is pretty great, if my basement ever gets too hot I run the dishwasher or take a shower and the water heater cools things down nicely. In winter I close the door and vent to the utility room and it doesn’t hurt the heating very much. It’s smaller than my previous gas water heater but it lasts significantly longer and heats up faster if you do end up using all the hot water. My house of 4 uses about 50kWh of hot water a month, which works out to about 5bucks a month. I’ve messed with it a bit so it runs mostly during off peak hours.
I replaced my water heater, got a heatpump and improved insulation at around the same time (through the greener homes loan program) and on the whole saved about 50bucks a month overall, and will save another 30 when I cap off the gas pipe and get to stop paying all the bullshit fees for just having it connected. I live in southern Ontario, away from the lakes, so -30 - 30 weather typically. (All this week has been 40+ though, wonder why…).
Oh and fwiw, I would take my current induction stovetop over a gas stove anyway, much more consistent, easier to clean and heats up faster, and doesn’t heat up the whole house to run.
Um, yes? Heat pump until -15C, baseboards for the relatively fewer days that go below that. Plus good insulation.
In Quebec we have cheap hydroelectric of course, but I mean, between nuclear power, renewables and hydro, that’s basically how.
Synthetic methane.
Natural gas infrastructure and heating could be transitioned to hydrogen or biogas.
Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas so would not really be a replacement for the foreseeable future. Gas infrastructure is not designed for transporting hydrogen so leaks would be significant. Hydrogen can also penetrate into steel piping and cause it to crack and deteriorate more rapidly.
Biogas, sure if there were enough production available.
No reason we can’t produce hydrogen from solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal.
Add carbon dioxide to the hydrogen, and you get methane that you can transport through existing gas pipelines without the issues of hydrogen
A perfect Electrolysis reaction takes about 39kwh to produce 1kg of hydrogen that if burned at 100% efficiency would yield 33kwh of power. More realistically it takes 50-60kwh to produce 1kg that is burned to produce ~25kwh of usable energy.
I’m not too sure about converting hydrogen to methane but that will have energy overhead as well, and then you have to deal with the fact that 6% of natural gas production today is leaked into the air, which both further hurts the efficiency of synthesizing it and also has a significant climate impact.
I think it willl almost always be cheaper to just provide electricity directly except in cases where energy density is far more important than efficiency, which is not the case for stationary homes.
It doesn’t have a negative climate impact if the source is renewables. That’s the point. Its basically free gas.
Solar energy doesn’t run at night. Wind doesn’t always run. Hydro doesn’t work during droughts.
This is a battery that solvers these issues.
If you take co2 and convert it to methane and then release that methane you are increasing the impact of that co2 by 6x.
Something like 90% of hydrogen is produced from methane and coal, so there clearly are reasons. Most likely cost effectiveness.
Add carbon dioxide to the hydrogen, and you get methane that you can transport through existing gas pipelines
Well sure, since those pipes are already transporting methane. I dont think requiring each home to have its own methane pyrolysis infrastructure is particularly practical or efficient either.
Because its a waste product, but once we make digging up fossil fuels illegal, that will change. Then we can repurposed the infrastructure in ways that are not harmful
I have no idea what to make of this vacuous comment, so unless you have something meaningful and specific to say I think I am done with this conversation. Good Day.
I prefer cooking on a gas stove. 🤷♂️
I like the taste of dolphins. 🤷♀️
What do they taste like?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In 2022, buildings accounted for 13 per cent of the country’s emissions, making them the third biggest source of greenhouse gases by sector, after oil and gas and transportation.
It was overseen by provincial and territorial regulators whose key goal was to ensure safe and reliable energy at fair rates for customers.
It aimed to incentivize developers “to choose the most cost-effective, energy-efficient choice,” but the board was overruled by the Ontario government, so the original plan will go ahead.
Kate Harland, lead author of the Canadian Climate Institute report, said utility regulators’ mandates should be changed to include climate targets, as has been done in the U.K. And they could change “obligation to serve rules” in order to consider alternative technologies, such as electrification, energy efficiency measures or thermal networks to provide heating to customers.
It is the perfect method to allow gas utilities to transition and keep or increase their annual profit, while at the same time reducing the customer’s energy bills, according to Schulman.
Harland says current incentives alone won’t drive down customer demand for gas quickly enough and energy policies need to change.
The original article contains 1,091 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Natural gas heating is very efficient and huge BTUs for low cost. When you live where it actually gets cold, it’s important. As is heating water. Cooking at restaurants also important.
Not everything is binary. We don’t need 100% renewables and 0% gas and 0% plastic and 0% ICE vehicles. Renewable energy is 68% in Canada or 20% in the USA in terms of energy production. Getting those USA numbers to 50% or both to 80% is more important.
FYI, in the USA natural gas is about 32% of the USA’s energy use. 15% of natural gas is used by residences. That’s 4.8% of the power. Which means this entire debate goes out the window if you just installed 5% more solar or wind energy.
Making people fight and become tribal over trivial things that mean nothing is an easy way to prevent anything from happening. Idiots are fighting over trying to reduce 4.8% of energy that is perfectly fine at what it’s doing. Meanwhile the natural gas companies are happy to keep supplying the remaining 27% of the USAs entire power via gas, and not a damn thing is being done. Use your energy to get that 27% down to 22% and you’ve done better than you ever will with demanding residences be built with shitty alternatives.
We actually do need 0% emissions and 100% renewables.
We actually do need 0% emissions and 100% renewables.
Yes. The sooner the better.
But on the way there we have to take the wins we can get and not let perfect be the enemy of good.
The way we truly save the world from everything is exactly your philosophy. Continuously improve. Don’t refuse to do good things that are not perfect ( unless your true goal is to do nothing ).
Which is not physically possible as most modern life relies on things that are not renewable.
The little that is done to reduce on a personal scale is meaningless compared to what is needed to be done globally and by industry.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do your part. But it’s stupid to believe any of it will help at all. At best it causes discourse for no reason. At worst, you’re being played as a fool by large corporations to put off actual change longer and longer.
And just because it seems Lemmy can’t seem to understand not everything is binary, I have had 10KW of solar for 15 years. I have had hybrid cars for 20 years. I’ve had pure electric cars for 13 years. I am one of the few that have installed heat pumps. I also have electric (solar) powered radiant water heating because water is a good energy store. I do way more than your average person. But I’m not stupid enough to think “0 emmisions” is possible. And nobody after a 5 minute google shouldn’t understand commercial and industrial energy usage versus residential usage.
Not that it matters, but I don’t think you should be getting down voted for expressing your perspective. I will say it comes off like you’re some kind of captain planet villain advocating for gas expansion.
getting down voted for expressing your perspective.
How do you know this is the case? Maybe there are other reasons to downvote?
I dunno, the long text and count I guess? It could be their username?
I guess I assumed but I don’t doubt people just downvote what they don’t agree with.
People definitely downvote on things they don’t agree with.
This is different from downvoting because someone expressed their perspective.
OK…?
People on Lemmy seem more tribal than even reddit. You must be “for” or “against” something, black and white.
For example if tomorrow every house in Canada and the USA stopped using natural gas, like the supply just stops and electric equivalents are installed, emmisions would go UP.
A 100k BTU furnace is about 29kwh. My old high efficiency furnace was 96%. The crappy ones are usually 80% efficient. Assuming 80% efficiency, the worst sold is installed everywhere then you need 23kwh per hour.
If the energy source is coal, your electric furnace produces 50.6 CO2e. 22.3 CO2e if the source is natural gas itself (natural gas plant making electricity for you to make heat). If it’s an average USA KWh of 0.86 CO2e/kWh, then that’s 19.5. And it’s 11.7 CO2e if you just burn it for heat in your house.
For some areas in Canada, like BC, the electricity is cheap, renewable, and awesome. In that case it’s almost 2x better to run electric heat than the 80% natural gas furnace. But not everywhere is BC.
And that’s part of the point. You have to look at the whole picture. There’s really no reason to not run a natural gas line to a new residential property. It’s a high pressure pipe connecting everyone’s house. Maybe in the future that’s where the organic smell-o-vision inlet comes in for our holodecks. All the power and heat being electric, but saving individual deliveries of thousands of compounds to every house versus one. Repurposing utility scale infrastructure is common. You don’t have to know what the need is today. But knowing how ridiculously expensive it is to install later should be all the warning people need.
If the energy source is coal
Comparing one fossil fuel to a worse one is not a valid argument. Electricity generation is being pushed towards nuclear and renewables for the foreseeable future.
You don’t have to know what the need is today. But knowing how ridiculously expensive it is to install later should be all the warning people need.
Humans don’t need any additional gasses to survive. The only reason we use methane is that it was once very cheap and we didn’t know how bad it was in the longterm. All of our other needs are met by electricity (energy), water, or a trip to a store, if for some reason the xXxBox9080 needs a compressed gas cylinder in 2030 you can go pick it up. Throwing resources in a literal hole in the ground today because we might find a use for it tomorrow is not good planning.
You obviously can’t comprehend basic things, so goodbye.
I have an air source heat pump for my house and a heat pump water heater. Even in the dead of winter at 0F it kept my house just as warm as always and my water was hot. Heat pumps are not “shitty alternatives” any longer. Maybe in Alaska they would struggle but anywhere else and they work just fine.
If we want to honestly improve the climate then it is REQUIRED that we become carbon negative, not just net zero. And every little bit of emission that is prevented is a lot of power that isn’t needed later on to suck that carbon back out of the air.
You can complain that big companies aren’t doing enough to cut emissions and I agree, but that doesn’t mean we should wait till they clean up their act to start working on ours.
There are also many ways to build a more efficient building envelope and insulation is one of the cheapest things that goes into a house. That makes the heat pumps even more viable in more climates.
I also love how people love to hate on heat pumps when there’s so many shit box homes with electric baseboards wasting tons of power.
Yep, the standards for energy efficiency in homes is just barely above being non-existent. We spent decades with cheap energy so no one cared if every house leaked like a sieve. Now that’s coming back to bite us.
Not everything is binary. We don’t need 100% renewables and 0% gas and 0% plastic and 0% ICE vehicles.
As a species, we need to get to zero emissions, and ideally negative numbers. It’s easy to point fingers at others and then do nothing, but there’s too much of that going on right now. Any reduction is a good thing.
You can’t have 0 emmisions. Even a barren asteroid emits.
You can have net 0. And net 0 can include petrochemicals.
And net 0 can include petrochemicals.
Maybe at some point in the future when carbon capture is a viable technology. But we’re already at the point where “we’ll deal with it later” is not a good enough solution.
I agree that there’s no way around petrochemicals, and we’ll have to offset the emissions to reach net 0.
Gas heating has an alternative though. Heat pumps are already cheaper to run compared to gas heating, even without any carbon offsetting.
The pressure to reach net 0 is only gonna grow as the impacts of climate change get worse. To reach net 0 we’ll have to offset all significant emissions. When the offsets are priced in, using gas heaters becomes insanely expensive in comparison to heat pumps.
It’s just a matter of time until gas heating is essentially dead. It might be in 10 years or 20 years, but there’s no way around it.
But then fracking.
We can make synthetic methane with renewable energy though. I don’t have a problem with building such infrastructure becsuse it can be used with renewable energy
Unless the round trip efficiency of synthesized methane (synthesis, transportation and re-capture) is better than solar/hydro/nuke electricity it doesn’t make sense build our own hydrocarbons. There are also the cumulative health effects of burning methane in your house and that it is serious greenhouse gas.
Its a battery. It makes more sense than electricity because its extremely energy dense, can be transported long distances far more efficiently than electricity, and can be stored indefinitely in low-tech gas tanks instead of electrical batteries
Methane has to be compressed for both transportation in pipes and storage in tanks, a very energy expensive process. Or it can be chilled down and condensed to a liquid for bulk transportation in ships, also a very energy expensive process. Every single joint and valve in the distribution network has the potential to leak, and many of them do, the same goes for storage tanks. Also pressure regulators (like the one on the side of your house) have to vent to bring down the pressure when the
networkhouse pressure is too high.Natural gas distribution networks are extremely leaky.
Also pressure regulators (like the one on the side of your house) have to vent to bring down the pressure when the network is too high.
No. They have to vent if your household pressure is too high. If, for example, cold gas was admitted into your lines, and that gas heated up, the pressure in your lines would increase. The regulator can’t push that gas back into the high pressure main, so the regulator would have to bleed off the excess pressure.
Derp, that IS right, will correct.
