291–300 of 614 posts
A large reason electric (restive and induction) are seen as inferior to gas is that portable units are limited to 120v/15a (few are 20a) so the total possible power is technically less than a gas stove; 2800w effective. However, gas stoves are very inefficient so in reality it's not a huge problem and 240v electric stoves could even be hotter (~4000w) than a gas stove. > Xie estimates that he pays around $500 to $700…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 90% of the problem is caused by someone else Is that true? Or is it true that no factor is more than 10%, so everyone can use this rhetoric and say '90% isn't me!' Also, if you think about it, though it's a very trendy take (which you can see repeated many times on this page) - think past the trend: it's a transparent, embarrassing abdication of responsibility. As just one person, only a tiny amount of the world is…
Neither is true nor false, it was a rhetorical exaggeration for effect. But yes, it's very close because corporations are far more responsible for CO2 than individuals. > Transportation (27% of 2020 greenhouse gas emissions) – The transportation sector generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, shi…
The consumer is obviously accountable too.
You can't sit and eat a mail order stake from japan and say you have no carbon footprint, but the airline and ag industries do.
The obvious answer has always been cap and trade, but it is dead on arrival because consumers don't want to pay more for their CO2 intensive goods.
A large reason electric (restive and induction) are seen as inferior to gas is that portable units are limited to 120v/15a (few are 20a) so the total possible power is technically less than a gas stove; 2800w effective. However, gas stoves are very inefficient so in reality it's not a huge problem and 240v electric stoves could even be hotter (~4000w) than a gas stove. > Xie estimates that he pays around $500 to $700…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Populations of insects have collapsed, fish stocks have collapsed, biosphere is polluted by millions of tons of forever chemicals dumped into the Pacific ever year. Chemicals that keep accumulating in every life form. Earlier puberty in girls by several years, lower testosterone in men by more than 50% in two generation. Intersex fish. Some species are even reproducing asexually which for some was thought impossible.…
You’re right about the acute pollution from the fossil fuel industry. The affects are not distributed evenly. We need to solve that. Climate change is already affecting us, we’ve lost a lot of agricultural productivity because of it, and it’s going to get worse faster than it has in the past. Both these issues have their roots in fossil fuel extraction. If we can eliminate the extraction, we solve both issues.
Semiconductor manufacturing gaves is few superfund sites in the US. Nothing to do with fossil fuels either.
The big problem is total lack of liability.
You can dump millions of actual toxins and poison literally billions and no jail time for anyone involved, not even a token patsy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I know, right? The nanny state is ridiculous, next they'll ban lead paint in nurseries. ---- But more seriously, regulations should be driven by the amount of harm the regulation would prevent, the costs/side-effects of the regulation, etc... I'm unsure where gas stoves fall on that spectrum without more research.
From what I can tell, gas stove bans would really just be a side effect of the broader measure, which is requiring homes to be "emission free". The measure seems to be more directly about heating/water/etc... Which makes me wonder if it might not just make sense to add some exclusions for some specific appliances for places like restaurants. I don't know the numbers, but I doubt that stoves in specific are the highes…
Perhaps there are some allowances for restaurants as well. I think that would make sense to me.
I recall reading at the time when these policies were announced that home builders felt that it would be pretty bad with money for a home to pay for a gas hookup purely for cooking, so in the future the only people that would probably do it would be rich cooking enthusiasts that have money to throw away. Regular people would probably decline gas altogether.
(Personally when my ancient gas stove recently broke I replaced it with a new induction stove and I'm finding it exceptionally great)
A large reason electric (restive and induction) are seen as inferior to gas is that portable units are limited to 120v/15a (few are 20a) so the total possible power is technically less than a gas stove; 2800w effective. However, gas stoves are very inefficient so in reality it's not a huge problem and 240v electric stoves could even be hotter (~4000w) than a gas stove. > Xie estimates that he pays around $500 to $700…
I miss Korean BBQ on a gas or charcoal burner. The only places I have ever managed to have it that was at Jongro in NYC or everywhere in Korea. The electric burner experience just isn't as fun.
From what I can tell, gas stove bans would really just be a side effect of the broader measure, which is requiring homes to be "emission free". The measure seems to be more directly about heating/water/etc... Which makes me wonder if it might not just make sense to add some exclusions for some specific appliances for places like restaurants. I don't know the numbers, but I doubt that stoves in specific are the highes…
In Vancouver, where 54% of CO2 emissions is natural gas use in buildings, the City has recently banned natural gas use in new building construction, however they did leave the door open to allowing natural gas use for cooking and fireplace. I suppose the dominant amount of CO2 is coming from water heating and home heating. Perhaps there are some allowances for restaurants as well. I think that would make sense to me.…
I don't see how it makes sense: the electricity has to be generated, which is almost always via burning something to heat a boiler. Then the electricity is sent to houses via the grid, which involves further losses. So you burn something, make heat, make electricity, send the electricity though wires, to make heat. Vs, just making heat directly in the house to accomplish the job. If all our electricity came from rene…
At the same time that cities are updating the building code and zoning to phase out CO2 intensive home heating, the state and fed governments can be moving to shift electrical generation away from CO2 intensive methods.
I'll take my chances.