This is the age old false dichotomy between personal use (minuscule percentage of green house gasses) versus agricultural/commercial use (the actual elephant in the room).
A quick google tells me household consumption contributes to 72% of GHG emissions: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es803496a
This is a pointless game of accounting, that distracts from the issue at hand.
As long as producers aren't taxed for emissions, consumers can't pick lower-emission producers.
Have you used induction? My experience is that it's much more responsive than gas.
Yes, it turns on quickly but it also has to vary on and off to maintain the temperature which leads to it either running too cool part of the time or too hot. Gas allows you to set the exact temp you need and it makes a smooth, quick transition and then maintains it perfectly.
> Gas allows you to set the exact temp you need
No gas stove I’ve used has had this functionality. They let you set the exact output you want, which is not the same (and induction cooktops can do that too).
Yes, if you want to set a specific temperature induction cooktops will cycle, but you can also use them the same way you’d use a gas stove and then they don’t.
I always find laughable when governments are scolding or limiting peasants for basically nothing, while ignoring the elephant in the room. * You need to conserve the water, California peasant! Ignore the fact that 80% of water in California is consumed by agriculture and we are not going to do anything about it. * You need to stop using your gas stove, peasant! Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo N…
The solution has to be both. LA city government can't replace the grid or set national energy policy. National policy is held hostage by climate deniers who refuse to lift a finger on anything that would have any actual scale. Saying we can't act locally because there's not enough action globally is nonsequitar. We have to do both. People using gas stoves and overwatering lawns has to stop regardless of anything else. We can't just wait for everyone else to go first.
I always find laughable when governments are scolding or limiting peasants for basically nothing, while ignoring the elephant in the room. * You need to conserve the water, California peasant! Ignore the fact that 80% of water in California is consumed by agriculture and we are not going to do anything about it. * You need to stop using your gas stove, peasant! Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo N…
Ignore the fact that we are going to switch off Diablo Nuclear Power plant and replace it with gas plants. That's a bit disingenuous. Those units were brought online in 1985 and 1986 and are licensed to operate through 2025. That's forty years - which is the life span of a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant. So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life. Building a new nuclear power station…
You're kind making OP's point here, no? In essence, there are some huge failures to resolve these issues at the level where those solutions would matter in terms of moving the needle. The responsibility is being abrogated at the governmental level, and being kicked down to individuals where the cost to benefit ratio is far worse, both for the individual and the environment.
This is the age old false dichotomy between personal use (minuscule percentage of green house gasses) versus agricultural/commercial use (the actual elephant in the room).
This is the age old false dichotomy between personal use (minuscule percentage of green house gasses) versus agricultural/commercial use (the actual elephant in the room).
Which leads to the next unavoidable step which is sharp reductions in meat consumption.
> That's a bit disingenuous. Those units were brought online in 1985 and 1986 and are licensed to operate through 2025. That's forty years - which is the life span of a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant. So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life. I doubt that is true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#2021... talks about a report that states "that keeping Diablo op…
> Why is this a "lack of ability" rather than a lack of political will? Even in countries that are massively pushing for nuclear energy and where the utilities are sometimes outright government-owned, like in France, Finland or the UK, nuclear reactor projects have continuously hit massive cost and deadline overruns: Finland's Olkiluoto 3 had 12 years delay and ended up costing over three times as expected, French Fl…
150 plants in 15 years. There will definitely be at least one meltdown.
>China’s Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout
It seems like an alternative might be to use induction to warm a small heat exchange device, then blow air through it so that extremely hot air similar to a gas flame comes out. Probably some engineering would be needed, but not that much. There are already serious problems with water vapor condensation from burning natural gas so this could potentially be a superior alternative with more opportunities for controlling the heat output.
Is gas preferred over charcoal? I've no clue about what you are talking about but I figure charcoal would have been the oldest cooking method anywhere. Gas has no flavour or soul compared to charcoal cooking.
Smokiness adds more flavor, sure, but is also generally a bigger indoor hazard.
If only there was something renewable we could make or grow and could make a flame... but even if sucha thing was invented i guess that wouldn't have the centuries old traditional essence of natural gas any more?
I was thinking about this. What if you got something like a mini induction melting furnace, and then just had a fan blowing hot air up through a grate that the pan can rest on?