Heating from gas is a seperate issue for example for germany though. Many, and i mean many homes still have gas run heating units installed and a majority can't afford to invest in new heating installations. Still good news though that it is past gas in pure energy production and that the storages are full enough for said heating purposes.

Lazy_Lemur_ t1_j6n3yim wrote on January 31, 2023 at 2:43 PM

This is most of the continent.

Unless you're building a new house, chances are you're going to have gas heating.

Electric heating comes with a whole bunch of other stuff that's going to be very expensive.

First you've got millions of people that can't afford to replace their gas heating unit with an electric one.

Then you've got a lot more people that can't afford to actually use electric heating as the cost is so much greater than gas.

Then you've got the problem that electric heating doesn't offer as much power as gas heating and many buildings are poorly insulated and draughty, often problems that people can't afford to fix.

Then you need to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the huge increase in electrical demand that switching over from gas will cause.

Switching from gas heating to electric heating isn't as simple as just replacing the heating unit iself, theres a whole bunch of other associated costs and work that needs performing as detailed above, which people often forget about.

CrimsonShrike t1_j6n7pxe wrote on January 31, 2023 at 3:09 PM

Heat pumps should be cheaper to run at this point. But installation costs are the highest

danbert2000 t1_j6oaw92 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 7:12 PM

Electric heating is cheaper than gas if you use heat pumps. Gas heating is not a long term strategy. Yes, the cost to switch is a problem, but if a gas furnace needs to be replaced it makes sense almost 100% of the time to switch over to a heat pump at this point. I switched, and my heating bill is the same this year whereas my neighbors all have bills that are 50% higher or even double.

Sofiner t1_j6mo9gn wrote on January 31, 2023 at 12:35 PM

i know this has nothing to do with it, but there was huge spike in solar panel prices, since everybody and their granma bouth them due the energy scare. Even houses are generating small inputs to the grids now.

Bosco_is_a_prick t1_j6n791p wrote on January 31, 2023 at 3:06 PM

European countries have been adding more more intermittent renewable energy generation year after year.

Showing building grids around intermittent renewable energy backed by gas is a cost effective way in reducing carbon emissions.

Yet detractors keep saying that the intermittent nature of wind and solar make them unsuitable for mass adoption.

Saffra9 t1_j6nhmxi wrote on January 31, 2023 at 4:13 PM

The intermittent nature of wind and solar is a real problem but not one that would stop them from giving a good average power output for the year. It instead means we still need a large capacity of energy generation with load following, which Europe had with oil and coal. A good baseline also helps which Europe has in some places with nuclear.

RedditIsShit9922 t1_j6nx6gn wrote on January 31, 2023 at 5:48 PM

Nuclear does hurt more than it helps, since its insane costs could be put into more cost-effective options.

It also cannot be used to compliment renewables because it cannot be used for dispatchable power generation. Thus it directly competes with renewables for every Dollar/Euro being spend on the energy sector.

People who are truly concerned about the climate catastrophy ought to oppose nuclear power in favor of renewables and storage.

Saffra9 t1_j6oam63 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 7:10 PM

Only the up front costs are insane, reactors pay for themselves in 30 years then keep going for another 30, then get extended for another 20.

Baseline power does support renewables, if it’s not nuclear it’s more fossil fuels. You need to generate four times as much energy if you are going to store it, for example as potential energy, then turn it back in to electricity again.

RedditIsShit9922 t1_j6oqlxp wrote on January 31, 2023 at 8:49 PM

They do not pay for themselves ever if you include all the externalities which currently are conveniently paid for by society. Nuclear power is a taxpayer scam where profits are privatized and costs are socialized.

>You need to generate four times as much energy if you are going to store it

Renewables are much cheaper power generators. Nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated.

So if you want to generate lots of energy for storage, you would be a fool to go for nuclear rather than renewables, even from a purely economical perspective.

And I rather have no electricity at all than nuclear power.

DrLemniscate t1_j6ovswe wrote on January 31, 2023 at 9:21 PM

We can easily get rid of coal, that's just stable baseline load.

The tricky part is that gas is currently needed to regulate the variability of renewables, to match to demand. We will need some big advancements and adoption in battery storage to replace gas entirely.

There is a thing called the "duck curve" where Solar drops off shortly before peak usage hours, this leads to massive ramp rates needed as demand increases and solar supply drops off. Currently, we see a lot of Gas units turned on just for their ramp speed, and turned off after an hour, very inefficient.

The EU is also helped by being a larger energy collective, less inefficiencies from having seperate utilities like parts of the US.

nyaaaa t1_j6oqo75 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 8:50 PM

Energy cost goes down, grid cost goes way up.

But if your country has a failing grid, they gotta rebuild it anyway.

Correct_Millennial t1_j6ortt3 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 8:57 PM

Detractors are misinformed and useful fools for the fossil fuel industry.

autotldr t1_j6mnscr wrote on January 31, 2023 at 12:30 PM

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot)

> Wind and solar power produced more of the EU's electricity than fossil gas for the first time last year.

> Through the turbulence of 2022 - from cutting ties with Russia to climate-driven drought and soaring gas prices - Europe's clean energy transition soldiered on.

> What we can say for sure, with all the certainty of hindsight, was that 2022 was a year of bold action - in which energy insecurity catalysed rather than derailed Europe's electricity transition.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: electricity^#1 energy^#2 per^#3 cent^#4 solar^#5

itisnottherealme t1_j6o2sfc wrote on January 31, 2023 at 6:22 PM

But I didn’t think wind and solar every produced any gas?

Supertrinko t1_j6ofphl wrote on January 31, 2023 at 7:42 PM

I see what you did there!

DemocracyFirst01 t1_j6pcnk5 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 11:09 PM

Unfortunately, Republicans have blocked the U.S. from pursuing wind and solar technology.

Earthling7228320321 t1_j6mk8vf wrote on January 31, 2023 at 11:52 AM

I wish the world was working together on the looking energy crises.

I can't help but feel that we could be looking at fusion power as a more realistic near future option if the whole world was throwing everything they have at it.

Ehldas t1_j6mnc4h wrote on January 31, 2023 at 12:25 PM

Fusion is not a "near future" option.

Research is going extremely well, and it's basically down to engineering rather than physics problems now as no-one in the industry really doubts that it will be a viable form of energy generation. But it's still 10-15 years away from even having a viable fusion reactor design, and then a huge amount more from being a dominant source of energy.

So we need to need to be concentrating on the solutions we have now (renewables, existing reactor designs, SMRs, etc.) to solve the problems for the next 20-30 years.

jert3 t1_j6nc5s2 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 3:38 PM

Fusion power has been 10-15 years away for at least 50 years now.

Ehldas t1_j6ndxbd wrote on January 31, 2023 at 3:50 PM

Well, yeah, but then again we've never before been a decade away from an actual, real Q10+ fusion reactor, even if it's not intended to be a commercial one, and now we are.

Earthling7228320321 t1_j6mtyrs wrote on January 31, 2023 at 1:27 PM

That's my point. It's not, but it could be.

And physics is still very much of concern here. Engineering solutions are great but at the end of the day we need a better fundamental understanding of particle behavior if we are to make it sustainable. Right now no amount of engineering alone is going to overcome the problem of neutrons rapidly destroying equipment when they start pouring out of the fusion reaction.

However difficult these problems are, if the world wasn't stuck in a status quo of exploitation and war posturing, it would certainly make the job easier.

Ehldas t1_j6mut8f wrote on January 31, 2023 at 1:34 PM

>Right now no amount of engineering alone is going to overcome the problem of neutrons rapidly destroying equipment when they start pouring out of the fusion reaction.

Really? You should tell that to the engineers who invented the FLiBe blanket, specifically designed to capture the neutrons "flooding out" and turn them into useful tritium to feed back into the fusion cycle, while also protecting the rest of the fusion reactor vessel.

Earthling7228320321 t1_j6n17bz wrote on January 31, 2023 at 2:23 PM

So then why are they still a problem?

Ehldas t1_j6n3rrg wrote on January 31, 2023 at 2:42 PM

I didn't say neutrons were a specific problem : you did.

There are plenty of other engineering problems, including long duration high-temperature divertors, tungsten chemistries for wall endurance, new magnet chemistries of higher power and smaller size, computing designs to continue optimising plasma flow control especially at edges, and overall reactor design for ease of construction, maintenance, etc.

Earthling7228320321 t1_j6n6yss wrote on January 31, 2023 at 3:04 PM

My point was that we'd solve these problems a lot faster if worked on getting along. But I realize that's just a pipe dream so this whole convo is kinda rooted in pointlessness. I wasn't really arguing about the specifics.

RedditIsShit9922 t1_j6nxpbw wrote on January 31, 2023 at 5:51 PM

>we could be looking at fusion power as a more realistic near future option

Fusion is the exact opposite of that. It is highly speculative and can only become viable in the far future, if ever. Do not get fooled by the sensationalist headlines. There is a mountain of giant problems that need to be overcome before fusion can actually become commercial, and we have no idea if we can ever overcome these problems.

But we desparately need to act now, not wait for scifi tech to become reality. We cannot afford to waste money on this now. We should invest it into things are working to reduce CO2 RIGHT NOW.

Earthling7228320321 t1_j6p26ql wrote on January 31, 2023 at 10:00 PM

I mean that would be great too but all signs point to us falling short of all the major climate goals so I think we should be funding every avenue of research we have on the matter. From renewables to fusion to AI to a new AI god based religion to give the masses of humanity a better life guide than the religions that are currently available. Which is a topic that I think we all need to talk more about, btw.

Supertrinko t1_j6ogx3h wrote on January 31, 2023 at 7:49 PM

We're totally working on fusion technology, and it's coming along at a nice pace. Every now and then we beat previous thresholds for how much energy it's generating.

In terms of "working together", that would indeed be idea. Just look at what the EU does for energy infrastructure across all the EU countries. Imagine if we gave the UN the mandate and funding to do that, but for the world. Just through economies of scale we'd have a much, much more efficient electricity system.

Unfortunately at this point the realist in my comes out and it becomes easy to pick that apart by what would really happen if we tried. "My country should get more and if you don't do x we'll pull funding!"

FoolInTheDesert t1_j6n3oqz wrote on January 31, 2023 at 2:41 PM

The ratio of energy in to energy out is an often ignored measure of energy production and it's eventual impact on our planet. Solar and wind might help lower CO2/CO emissions but at a great cost. The energy input to energy output ratio for wind and solar isn't good and it will unfortunately lead to massive habitat and wildlife loss as a result of needing to gobble up raw materials to produce or install enough to get the power we need. We will have to put in almost as much as we get out. With nuclear and natural gas we put in the same inputs and get 20x (or more) the return as solar or wind.

The sad thing is that solar and wind are not going to save us and will probably lead to an increase in habitat loss and destruction all over the planet. Natural gas should be used at utility scale as a bridge until we can build more nuclear power plants since they can be built so much faster.

I am a die hard environmentalist who was converted by having an open mind and just looking at the data.

A1phaBetaGamma t1_j6nj1y7 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 4:22 PM

PV Solar : literally turns sunlight directly to electricity

Wind: A blade rotates a generator

Coal: needs to be mined, transported, pulverized then burned in a 10 storey-high oven to filled with high pressure tubes reaching temperatures of 600°C containing expensive treated water to rotate a blade to rotate a generator.

Edit: I didn't even realise how bullshit the rest of this comment is. Nuclear Power plants take on average 10 years of construction before operating

Sinaaaa t1_j6nilg9 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 4:19 PM

It's very simple to debunk your claims, because energy costs money in China too, so you wouldn't get your solar panels below the manufacturing costs..

ScientificSkepticism t1_j6nygwj wrote on January 31, 2023 at 5:56 PM

> The energy input to energy output ratio for wind and solar isn't good... With nuclear and natural gas we put in the same inputs and get 20x (or more) the return as solar or wind.

The hell is this nonsense? The "energy in" is literally sunlight. Natural gas is gas extracted from the earth that you're burning to create more CO2.

The sunlight is going to hit the earth either way, we're capturing some of it as energy. The efficiency there is infinite.

>The sad thing is that solar and wind are not going to save us and will probably lead to an increase in habitat loss and destruction all over the planet.

Complete nonsense. We'd need a 115,000 square mile solar plant to power the entire world. Libya, a country you probably haven't thought of in a while, is 679,000 square miles.

So to power the entire world we'd need an area less than a quarter the size of Libya. Which, again, is a country you haven't thought about in months. No, this is not actually that much area.

The-Brit t1_j6nebsw wrote on January 31, 2023 at 3:52 PM

Data from biased sources I suspect.

Supertrinko t1_j6og9fa wrote on January 31, 2023 at 7:45 PM

The problem with natural gas is we'll run out. Nuclear is great and environmentally friendly, but we absolutely need renewable sources to back it up. No one's putting a nuclear power plant on Niue for example.

Comments