223
submitted 3 months ago by LimpRimble@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 42 points 3 months ago

The more infrastructure they lay and the more customers they connect, the harder to shut them down. The more bail-worthy they become.

[-] northmaple1984@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] phx@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] nik282000@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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 Smart^TM^ shit) a ton of fossil fuel heating loads could be replaced with electric without needing any grid level upgrades.

[-] nik282000@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 months ago

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?

[-] LimpRimble@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 months ago

"Growth at any cost" is a great motto for corporations, and cancer.

[-] Fridgeratr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 months ago

Because number has to go up. Always. Forever. Unending.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago

That's great for climate goals, but can someone tell me how we're supposed to heat our homes? Electricity?

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 41 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
  1. Better insulation.
  2. Heat pumps.
  3. By the time gas heating is eliminated, climate change will have solved that problem.
[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Climat change won't magically remove heating needs. It will bring hotter summers, colder winters, bed weather etc.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] PhoenixAlpha@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago

Those ceramic/glasstop ovens are shit. An old school coil will always be better, or modern induction.

[-] SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] ebits21@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Meh they’re fine. Yes induction is better but they’re not shit.

[-] Policeshootout@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Shitty modern electric stove tops use infrared radiation. Good modern electric stove tops are induction

[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 6 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] jose1324@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

We actually do need 0% emissions and 100% renewables.

[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] heavy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] nik282000@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] VelvetGentleman@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

You can't have 0 emmisions. Even a barren asteroid emits.

You can have net 0. And net 0 can include petrochemicals.

[-] VelvetGentleman@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 10 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] chrizzowski@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 7 points 3 months ago

The problem is, they aren't going anywhere. They'll just funnel money to politicians to stop any attempt to stop them.

[-] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago

Annnnnd this is exactly why we need the carbon tax.

[-] Macallan@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I prefer cooking on a gas stove. 🤷‍♂️

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Auzy@beehaw.org 5 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] asg101@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

Natural gas infrastructure and heating could be transitioned to hydrogen or biogas.

[-] pbjamm@beehaw.org 6 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
223 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7159 readers
162 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS