this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
11 points (64.9% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
3 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)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
That's it. Gas used to be cheaper.
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.
Your mistake is assuming electricity always comes from fuel.
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.
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.
Nice corrections
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.
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.
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 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
I'll summarise why this is wrong too
Ignoring other renewables
Ignoring French nuclear imports
Ignoring current state but talking about possible future plans
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?
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.
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.
No you haven't. Read your own source. Hint: biogas
Also, nuclear fuel is not gas, so this speaks for electric stoves, silly.
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
That’s fuel. That’s in the 80%.
again: fuel energy → heat energy→ steam → turbine → transmission → heat energy
Try fueling your stove with uranium and report back
Luckily you don’t need to burn uranium to avoid 5 steps of energy transformation.
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.
You’re generally wrong on that:
“Over 60% of global electricity generated so far in 2023 was produced by fossil fuels” --Reuters
Belgium is what’s relevant in the case at hand. In Belgium ~20% of power is from solar, wind, and hydro. The other 80% is from burning fuel. I group nuclear with fossil fuel because the nuclear power plant in Belgium is being decommissioned and will be replaced with 3 new gas burning plants.
That’s true but that’s stoves not ovens. You’d have to exaggerate quite a bit to claim more than half of the heat energy is wasted on gas stoves or ovens.
Where? Unusual Belgium-wide? The cities concentrate populations. Brussels city is mostly old homes likely all piped with gas judging from the dominance of gas boilers. Are you saying there are lots of old homes that did not bother to branch a gas pipe into the kitchen?
That’d be a false economy. Pipes are like ~€7 per meter so it would take ~1—2 years for the pipes to pay for themselves if they are used for daily cooking.
I do not have a 400V outlet. I have no idea how many electric ovens require that, do you? I’m using a crappy portable 220V oven. If the big properly insulated wall ovens are 400V, then I would have to run a new line to the fuse box. Not sure if I could wire that myself, which I assume involves bridging two 220V circuits.
I guess most people don’t do their own work. So you are implying hiring someone to add one or the other post-construction would be cost prohibitive. Sounds reasonable. But I’m not convinced kitchens lack gas pipes to begin with because gas stovetops are still popular in Belgium. Just not gas ovens.
(edit) In Brussels in 2011, “natural gas consumption was 10,480 GWh and the electricity consumption was 5,087 GWh”, according to Wikipedia.
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.
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.
You can use a hallogen oven which heats up more quickly as well.
Sorry, misread the title and assumed gas was more expensive due to the Ukraine war.
Reading your post, I guess it's a mix between reasons 1 and 2