this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (16 children)

Was it always the case though? You should probably roll back to data in the 70's for wider house appliance rollout. Then if it's not a thing for a generation, it's never gonna be a thing. For today, electricity is easier to decarbonate I guess

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (15 children)

That's it. Gas used to be cheaper.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Why do you say that in the past tense? You can see from my figures that in Belgium gas is still cheaper.

This is something that varies from one region to another. In the US, some states have cheaper electric than gas. Electric is less efficient because of big losses in all the conversion steps:

fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy

Gas simply has:

fuel energy → transmission → heat energy

It is important to note that gas transmission is also lossy due to the impossibility of leak-free main lines, but it’s still more efficient in the end. Thus in most of the world gas is also naturally cheaper due to the efficiency difference. It gets inverted in some regions because of pricing manipulations as well as the drive to promote green energy (and rightfully so -- social responsibility should be incentivized). And in some regions they cut down on the transmission losses by putting the power plant inside or close to the big city. But in Belgium gas is still cheaper than electric even despite Russia’s war and efforts to get off Russian fuels.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Electricity is usually not made from fuel, though, but from a wide variety of resources. And you forgot the last step – transmission of heat from the stove to the food. Gas stoves are far inferior in this step, losing most of the heat into the surtounding air. Induction stoves have almost no transmission loss.

Another reason is installation. In order to use gas in the kitchen, you have to have a gas pipe in the kitchen, which has become very unusual. During construction, it's easier and cheaper to not lay gas pipes. Most people do not have a choice – either you got an old house witha gas pipe in the kitchen or a newer one with a 400 V power outlet.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

To me induction beats gas at cooking. It's always faster and more efficient to boil water using an induction stove rather than a gas stove.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

I’m still waiting for someone to show me an induction oven. This is the same as saying “don’t use an oven at all”. Of course, if you don’t need an oven, then it would not make sense to install an oven at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Your mistake is assuming electricity always comes from fuel.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s not an assumption. This is how power is produced in Belgium. There is only 1 nuclear power plant and it’s being decommissioned. 3 new fossil fuel burning power plants will be built.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Your statements are inaccurate to a degree that they may as well be false.

Only 30% is gas. 70% is not gas. Renewables are growing extremely rapidly, now at over 25%. In the medium and long term Belgium is aiming to reduce its use of gas as much as possible.

Also, there are two nuclear power plants, not one.

Betting on gas, be it a stove or something else, is just stupid.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Get your facts straight, or update Wikipedia to reflect your understanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Belgium

wind + solar + hydro → 20%

80% from burning fuels¹. With 3 new gas-burning plants under construction to replace nuclear, that’s not going to improve things.

Belgium is aiming to reduce its use of gas as much as possible.

Nonsense. I guess you missed the whole “Code Red” march against Electrabel last year protesting the plan to build 3 new gas-burning power plants.

there are two nuclear power plants, not one.

And that’s important why? From wikipedia:

“Belgium decided to phase out nuclear power generation completely by 2025.”

Whether there are 1, 2, or 5 nuclear plants is immaterial when it’s all being phased out, and replaced with gas-burning power plants.

Betting on gas, be it a stove or something else, is just stupid.

Betting in a way that neglects plans that have already been announced is stupid for sure.

¹ recall: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'll summarise why this is wrong too

  • Ignoring other renewables

  • Ignoring French nuclear imports

  • Ignoring current state but talking about possible future plans

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ignoring other renewables

I have accounted for all the renewables mentioned in the linked wikipedia page, which covers sources as insignificant as hydro (<1%). What else is there? Have you thought about updating wikipedia with whatever you think is missing?

Ignoring French nuclear imports

That would only increase the proportion of fuel energy even more, which only works against your botched claim. If you want to count French nuclear, then the portion of solar, wind, and hydro is proportionally even less. Brussels currently has a nuclear power plant inside the region. Why do you think it would it be sensible to transmit over such distance? That would introduce even more substantial inefficiency in the transmission.

Ignoring current state but talking about possible future plans

The status quo only has 1 year left on it. And nuclear power still has the same stages of energy transition loss you’ve failed to debunk. What’s the point? Your claim is nonsense either way.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No you haven't. Read your own source. Hint: biogas

Also, nuclear fuel is not gas, so this speaks for electric stoves, silly.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No you haven't. Read your own source. Hint: biogas

biogas was used in 2009, not in 2020 when the stats were collected. Nor would it matter if it were still used. Hint: it would be an increase on the 80%.

recall: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy

Also, nuclear fuel is not gas, so this speaks for electric stoves, silly.

That’s fuel. That’s in the 80%.

again: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Try fueling your stove with uranium and report back

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Luckily you don’t need to burn uranium to avoid 5 steps of energy transformation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Nice corrections

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)