201–210 of 220 posts
Electric stoves may at least help us solve the obesity crisis by avoiding letting anyone have food worth eating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, apparently induction stoves require special cookware So you just throw out all your pots?
While I can make no comment about your pots, cast iron, and many types of stainless steel are compatible, so any pots purchased recently should work. What I can say is it turns out all my pots worked and I didn't have to repurchase any when I got my induction stove. And it was worth it. Induction is better than gas!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NPR's deliberately shoddy journalism. I don't think "shoddy" is the correct term to use here. NPR/PBS, just like e.g. SVT/SR in Sweden, the BBC in the UK, NOS in the Netherlands and ARD/ZDF/NDR in Germany are better characterised by the term agenda-driven journalism - they tailor what they publish and how they publish to fit their desired narrative. They are certainly not alone in this but the difference with comme…
But what, specifically, is their "Agenda?" What is "The Narrative?" These threads always seem to bring out people pointing their fingers at The Narrative, but they don't say what that narrative is. You can't just say "It's Their Agenda" and "It's The Narrative" and just leave it at that! OP's point at least makes sense: The thing that actually seems to motivate journalism companies is to "make money by publishing art…
Just shouting that someone has an “agenda” is enough to make some people uncritically drop any facts that are uncomfortable.
In this case it’s honestly silly. News publications started widely publishing articles on gas stoves when research papers came out a couple of years ago indicating they posed health risks. They didn’t all simultaneously develop an anti-gas stove “agenda”. At worst you could argue that they’re being sensational for clicks.
This compared to gas industry publications. They actually have a pro-gas agenda because when people buy gas they make money. They and the people they lobby have an actual financial stake in making sure people use gas stoves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good start would be to have the same tax on electricity and gas. It's absurd that gas is heavily subsidized in most of Europe: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eus-energy-taxa... Fortunately, I live in one of the few countries which don't subsidize gas (Sweden). When I visit the continent and see a gas stove, it feels like going to a museum. Induction stoves are so much better.
We should let people decide what sort of stove is best for themselves rather than pushing one from the top down. Also, most people who are pressed to prematurely replace their stove will choose the cheapest option, which if pushed away from gas would be resistive electric not induction.
Even electrical resistance heating is more carbon efficient than burning gas at home. This doesn’t even require a high-renewable grid - it produces less CO2 burning gas for electricity to run an electric stove than it does burning gas at home due to the efficiency of a modern gas power plant and the dreadful waste heat of a gas burner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emission reductions and or efficiency improvements are also possible outcomes if the tax is higher than the cost of these changes.
Only if you can finance/afford it. If not, it could even delay change as it reduces available funds.
Look to the oil crisis of the 70s for examples - it was a bad time but the cost of fuel spurred a surge in sale of small cars because fuel efficiency finally mattered. On another front it spurred the cycling culture of the Netherlands - they didn’t take up cycling and build infrastructure to support it out of altruism, they did it because their fuel supply was nearly cut off entirely.
Innovation only happens when there is a reason to innovate. If carbon emissions don’t cost the emitter anything then there’s no reason to invest in ways to emit less.
It seems funny people get upset about gas stoves, and not that modern houses are not constructed to allow for adequate ventilation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you can finance/afford it. If not, it could even delay change as it reduces available funds.
The target is really industry. If no one has to pay the cost of emissions no one has any incentive to change. Look to the oil crisis of the 70s for examples - it was a bad time but the cost of fuel spurred a surge in sale of small cars because fuel efficiency finally mattered. On another front it spurred the cycling culture of the Netherlands - they didn’t take up cycling and build infrastructure to support it out of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Induction stoves are so much better." Depends. When the electricity comes from a gas power plant, it is way more efficient, to use the heat of the gas directly, instead of heating water and steam, running through a turbine, transmit lossy overland, convert to household power -> turn the electricity into heat again. But when you have renewable sources, it is a different story. I believe you have mostly nuclear power…
You are ignoring the cost of laying millions of miles of natural gas pipes to each and every home. And the leaks through all these pipes, which is 9%. Electricity is the first utility and all homes have it. Of course, you can be off grid and have no utilities, just have solar+batteries, electrification works perfectly in that scenario.
Replacing is a cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are ignoring the cost of laying millions of miles of natural gas pipes to each and every home. And the leaks through all these pipes, which is 9%. Electricity is the first utility and all homes have it. Of course, you can be off grid and have no utilities, just have solar+batteries, electrification works perfectly in that scenario.
But many homes already have it (in europe). Huge network of big and small pipelines. Replacing is a cost.
Sorry, I don't understand. What is being replaced? With what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The target is really industry. If no one has to pay the cost of emissions no one has any incentive to change. Look to the oil crisis of the 70s for examples - it was a bad time but the cost of fuel spurred a surge in sale of small cars because fuel efficiency finally mattered. On another front it spurred the cycling culture of the Netherlands - they didn’t take up cycling and build infrastructure to support it out of…
If the costs can be passed on, then there is potentially no incentive to innovate, either. It might also still be more cost efficient to innovate less to reduce costs than to actually innovate to reduce costs. Predicting where these things go is quite tricky.
Right now there’s minimal financial benefit to being more carbon efficient. If anything it’s disincentivised because efficiency is itself costly, so it’s cheaper to just emit.