• kent_eh
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      We actually do need 0% emissions and 100% renewables.

      Yes. The sooner the better.

      But on the way there we have to take the wins we can get and not let perfect be the enemy of good.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The way we truly save the world from everything is exactly your philosophy. Continuously improve. Don’t refuse to do good things that are not perfect ( unless your true goal is to do nothing ).

    • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Which is not physically possible as most modern life relies on things that are not renewable.

      The little that is done to reduce on a personal scale is meaningless compared to what is needed to be done globally and by industry.

      Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do your part. But it’s stupid to believe any of it will help at all. At best it causes discourse for no reason. At worst, you’re being played as a fool by large corporations to put off actual change longer and longer.

      And just because it seems Lemmy can’t seem to understand not everything is binary, I have had 10KW of solar for 15 years. I have had hybrid cars for 20 years. I’ve had pure electric cars for 13 years. I am one of the few that have installed heat pumps. I also have electric (solar) powered radiant water heating because water is a good energy store. I do way more than your average person. But I’m not stupid enough to think “0 emmisions” is possible. And nobody after a 5 minute google shouldn’t understand commercial and industrial energy usage versus residential usage.

      • heavy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not that it matters, but I don’t think you should be getting down voted for expressing your perspective. I will say it comes off like you’re some kind of captain planet villain advocating for gas expansion.

        • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          People on Lemmy seem more tribal than even reddit. You must be “for” or “against” something, black and white.

          For example if tomorrow every house in Canada and the USA stopped using natural gas, like the supply just stops and electric equivalents are installed, emmisions would go UP.

          A 100k BTU furnace is about 29kwh. My old high efficiency furnace was 96%. The crappy ones are usually 80% efficient. Assuming 80% efficiency, the worst sold is installed everywhere then you need 23kwh per hour.

          If the energy source is coal, your electric furnace produces 50.6 CO2e. 22.3 CO2e if the source is natural gas itself (natural gas plant making electricity for you to make heat). If it’s an average USA KWh of 0.86 CO2e/kWh, then that’s 19.5. And it’s 11.7 CO2e if you just burn it for heat in your house.

          For some areas in Canada, like BC, the electricity is cheap, renewable, and awesome. In that case it’s almost 2x better to run electric heat than the 80% natural gas furnace. But not everywhere is BC.

          And that’s part of the point. You have to look at the whole picture. There’s really no reason to not run a natural gas line to a new residential property. It’s a high pressure pipe connecting everyone’s house. Maybe in the future that’s where the organic smell-o-vision inlet comes in for our holodecks. All the power and heat being electric, but saving individual deliveries of thousands of compounds to every house versus one. Repurposing utility scale infrastructure is common. You don’t have to know what the need is today. But knowing how ridiculously expensive it is to install later should be all the warning people need.

          • Nik282000
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            If the energy source is coal

            Comparing one fossil fuel to a worse one is not a valid argument. Electricity generation is being pushed towards nuclear and renewables for the foreseeable future.

            You don’t have to know what the need is today. But knowing how ridiculously expensive it is to install later should be all the warning people need.

            Humans don’t need any additional gasses to survive. The only reason we use methane is that it was once very cheap and we didn’t know how bad it was in the longterm. All of our other needs are met by electricity (energy), water, or a trip to a store, if for some reason the xXxBox9080 needs a compressed gas cylinder in 2030 you can go pick it up. Throwing resources in a literal hole in the ground today because we might find a use for it tomorrow is not good planning.

        • Victor Villas
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          getting down voted for expressing your perspective.

          How do you know this is the case? Maybe there are other reasons to downvote?

          • heavy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I dunno, the long text and count I guess? It could be their username?

            I guess I assumed but I don’t doubt people just downvote what they don’t agree with.