LShaver

general recent conversations

Discussion on question by 0x60: Why w…

Imported from a comment discussion on diy.stackexchange.com/qu...

LShaver

Jun 19, 2023 03:08

@ChrisH but with the heat exchanger you mentioned, does it really matter if there's legionella in the closed-loop part of the system?

LShaver

Jun 19, 2023 03:08

@IgbyLargeman I suspect that's the reason -- a boiler with the capacity to heat a house would be very inefficient in the summer if all it was doing was providing domestic hot water.

LShaver

Jun 19, 2023 03:08

@MonkeyZeus combined systems use a heat exchanger to avoid that problem.

Discussion on answer by David Hammen:…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...

LShaver

Jan 20, 2023 16:32

Can you attribute all of that 37.4% reduction to natural gas? Shouldn't it be attributed to solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc, if generation from those sources increased over the same time period?

Sustainable Living

General discussion for sustainability.stackexchange.com

LShaver

Apr 29, 2022 11:55

A new study from NREL estimates that plastic we're sending to landfills in the US contains enough energy to replace 5% of the gasoline used by vehicles. Quantification and evaluation of plastic waste in the United States.

LShaver

Aug 12, 2021 13:36

Q: where does the lawn string trimmer line go?

I'm learning how to use a string trimmer before buying one. I know that it uses a line to cut the grass. But the line will wear and get shorter. Where does the line go? I guess into the grass and ground. Then it will be plastic waste into the ground, right? We know that plastic can't be decompose...

Discussion on answer by pinegulf: Did…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...

LShaver

Feb 11, 2022 15:03

@KonradRudolph there is an open question here seeking such good evidence.

Hub of Reason

General discussion about skeptics.stackexchange.com

LShaver

Jan 19, 2022 15:27

There's this one, but it isn't very thorough.

LShaver

Jan 19, 2022 15:26

Is there a meta discussion on how to cite resources? I'm thinking of a guideline for what should be included at minimum i.e. title, author name(s), date, etc.

Discussion on answer by Schwern: Is i…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...

LShaver

Jan 18, 2022 17:17

Don't forget about diesel!

Discussion between LShaver and JJJ

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 06:30

@JJJ agreed! but it's late here, I'm off to bed.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:17

But if people can't pay their energy bills, why not just give them the money for that?

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:16

Personally I'm opposed to all subsidies, but that's a whole other discussion ;)

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:15

Right. But how does pretending natural gas is green solve energy poverty?

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:14

And subsidies are insidious. In the U.S. we subsidize ethanol production, which sounds like a good thing, except that you can use it just like gasoline... which means that gasoline-powered stuff ends up being cheaper, which means people buy more gasoline, etc.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:13

Yeah, but it's a global industry, and globally it's massively subsidized: nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:11

And the investment cost is higher today. If the EU (and others) did not label natural gas a green fuel, that puts pressure on the market.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:09

Right, but why is it cheaper? Because fossil fuels are subsidized, and carbon emissions are not priced correctly.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:04

The difference is that refrigeration systems are built on timescales of 10 years or less, but power infrastructure is built on timescales of 30 years or more.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:04

No alternatives existed at the time. Today, there are dozens of alternatives to choose from, all of which are higher performing and less expensive than those which were banned in 1989.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:03

We only need a paradigm shift to cause the investment shift -- just like when ozone depleting refrigerants were banned.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:03

Right. The source in winter is still wind, hydro, and PV, with upgrades to the grid. Again, all technology we have today, but a massive infrastructure investment which is unparalleled.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:01

Wind and solar can easily produce sufficient energy. The challenge is getting the energy where it's needed at the right times, but electrifying vehicle fleets can address this problem, as well as investment in large-scale batteries.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:00

or water-source for large buildings, or using district heating/cooling plants in dense urban areas

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 05:00

yes.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 04:59

All of the technology that is needed is available today -- air source heat pumps for heating and cooling homes, for instance, and induction stoves for cooking.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 04:56

It's like putting $1000 every month into a failing car because you don't have the $10,000 you need to replace it with a better one.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 04:55

Yes. But there's one pot of money. You can spend it on natural gas, or you can spend it on things like heating.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 04:54

NG infrastructure lasts 20 to 30 years or more. We need to be carbon neutral within 20 to 30 years, so there's only one correct choice.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 04:53

Labeling NG as a green fuel is essentially a government subsidy of natural gas. This money and political capital should rather be spent on solar, wind, batteries, and electric infrastructure.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 04:52

@JJJ coal is already less profitable than natural gas. It's a shrinking industry. I suppose you could argue that improving profitability of NG would make it shrink faster, but not doing so certainly wouldn't prolong it.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 04:50

"during the transition" is the part that's hard to swallow. If natural gas wasn't labeled as a green fuel, the transition would happen faster. And the leaks are a clear indication that the "bridge fuel" has plenty of it's own problems, of which the EU is already aware.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 04:50

I don't think it's "very different" -- it's nuance. The research indicates that to produce power today, in terms of GHG emissions, there may be little functional difference between coal and natural gas.

LShaver

Dec 17, 2021 04:50

@Zeus actually, there are plenty who dispute that: See this research summary discussing leaks in natural gas infrastructure, including this finding: "[R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other 'abnormal' operating conditions. The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants operating in 2015, they found."

Discussion on answer by niels nielsen…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...

LShaver

Oct 28, 2021 02:00

See also: nrel.gov/news/features/2021/…

LShaver

Oct 28, 2021 02:00

@ManuelFortin the technology is improving and they are becoming more common. Where I live in Wisconsin, a heat pump is today more cost-effective than a propane or oil furnace, which used to be the default for homes without a natural gas connection. Most of them have electric resistance elements for back-up on nights where it gets really cold.

Discussion on answer by Evan Carroll:…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...

LShaver

Oct 26, 2021 19:54

Based on this answer, it seems your actual question is "does SpaceX have a goal of 3,000 Starship launches per day?"

Discussion on question by tnknepp: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on diy.stackexchange.com/qu...

LShaver

Oct 16, 2021 19:33

EV is electric vehicle. Basically, you want to have as much of your home load electrified as possible before adding solar to increase the chances you can use as much of the energy you produce as possible, because excess energy you sell back to the grid will always get a lower price than what you pay.

LShaver

Oct 16, 2021 19:33

Given the cost difference between residential and utility-scale solar, it usually doesn't make sense to go solar until you've gone 100% electric at the house, AND have your own EV. I'd save your cash for an EV or invest until it's time to replace that gas furnace, at which point the cost will have come down more and utility rates will be more favorable.

LShaver

Oct 16, 2021 19:33

Is your house well sealed, well insulated, with high efficiency all-electric appliances including heat pump and water heater?

Discussion on question by LoopingDev:…

Imported from a comment discussion on electronics.stackexchang...

LShaver

Oct 14, 2021 16:09

@LoopingDev and how much current?

LShaver

Oct 14, 2021 15:55

@LoopingDev even if you assume your wiring has 0 resistance, your source still needs to be able to provide the current.

Discussion on answer by Dave: At the …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...

LShaver

Sep 29, 2021 18:54

@Dave I tend to agree, but this answer would benefit from a direct, clear response to the question.

LShaver

Sep 29, 2021 18:54

So is your answer "pretty close for oil and gas, but way off for coal?"

The Restaurant at the End of the Univ…

General discussion for scifi.stackexchange.com, both on-topic ...

LShaver

Sep 9, 2021 16:17

@AncientSwordRage <waves>

LShaver

Sep 9, 2021 16:15

The trailer for Matrix: Resurrections is out today: youtu.be/9ix7TUGVYIo

Discussion on answer by CJR: Do surgi…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...

LShaver

Sep 6, 2021 18:01

This looks promising but I think the table needs more interpretation and some conclusions, i.e., what does it mean for an "intervention coefficient" to be negative? Does the absolute value tell us anything? Is the "baseline control" the mask wearing instruction, or something else?

Discussion on answer by user4012: Wha…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...

LShaver

Jul 1, 2021 20:16

Your statement ("they don't consider it a human right") should be in your answer, which, for the record, I believe starts off strong. You are right that this question ("why don't conservatives consider it a human right?") should be another question... but your answer should say so! You talk about noisy issues, and the "who's paying?" question is part of what makes this one noisy.

LShaver

Jul 1, 2021 20:16

@user4012 again, the truffle analogy breaks down because no one believes that's a human right. My point is not to argue whether contraception is a right or not (though I believe it is), just to point out that this question -- whether or not it is a right -- is what's really at issue in the debate. When we agree that something is a human right (like access to water) there's no argument about whether/how it's paid for. The discussion about who's paying distracts from the argument about whether or not it's a right to which individuals should be guaranteed access.

LShaver

Jul 1, 2021 20:16

Right, and that's the crux of the argument. What's the difference between denying someone a thing, and denying them the means to acquire a thing? Eliminating insurance coverage of contraceptives, for some individuals, is the same as denying them access to it.