It's time to rip up gas networks
It's time to set a date to phase out Australia's old 19th century gas networks. In their place, the electricity network can take on all of the energy tasks of the old gas networks and do it with higher efficiency and better economies of scale, bringing cost saving to all consumers at a time when the cost of living is constantly rising.
Simply put, all the services provided by the gas network today can be provided more efficiently by electricity. Some of the money saved from the expense of keeping the old legacy gas network will be rolled into upgrading the electricity network and the rest will be delivered as savings to energy consumers, who will pay less when they pay once for electricity, rather than paying twice for both electricity and gas.
Here we have a big long-term productivity opportunity. It is completely inefficient and costly to be running an extra, redundant and inferior energy network. Already, in the 1930s, the role of gas was diminishing, being replaced by much safer and more controllable electricity for lighting. Since that time, the ever expanding energy needs of our modern economy – for powering computers, refrigeration and televisions – have been met by electricity and not by gas.
Today, gas is only able to fulfil three energy tasks in our homes. Each of those three – cooking, heating and hot water – can be achieved much more efficiently, and at a lower cost, using electricity; and even lower again, once the gas network is closed, and better economies of scale in the electricity network are realised.
Gas cooking is about 35 per cent efficient (well to pot), while induction electric cooktops are 85 per cent efficient (solarfarm to cooktop). A shift to induction electric from gas will halve energy use for cooking.
Gas heating of Australian homes is, at best, 70 per cent efficient, while small domestic heat pumps (reverse cycle air conditioners) offer upto 800 per cent of the heat delivered, versus the energy consumed and paid for from the electricity grid. Much of the nation's housing stock already has reverse cycle air conditioners installed and, due to lack of awareness, in Victoria these units are remaining idle for six months over the heating season, which consumes 72 times the energy of the 20 or 30 cooling days in summer in that state. In the many cases where reverse cycle air conditioners are already installed, the switch from gas to electric is just a matter of education and getting people to reach for their air conditioner remote control.
Previously, gas hot water was the lock-in that was keeping a number of people from doing away with gas altogether in their households.
Fortunately, Innovative Australian hot water company, Edson, is currently offering a very high performance, high efficiency stand alone electric heat pump, which delivers upto 75 per cent renewable ambient heat into your hot water in a year, or a heat pump-boosted solar hot water unit that delivers upto 90 per cent of your hot water heat from stored solar energy in the atmosphere outside by utilising the refrigeration cycle. With some well directed incentives, the entire industry can move to the same type of Japanese inverter CO2 heat pump models that Edson is using in its product range.
Outside of environmental concerns, one of the biggest reasons to get rid of gas is to reduce the risk of burns and poisoning that effects mainly children living in houses heated with gas. Burns from gas are a significant factor in young and old people being admitted to hospitals, the shift from 19th century gas to 21st century induction cooktops does away with this problem.
Earlier this year, the federal Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson was pushing a very expensive requirement that all residential properties with gas appliances should be fitted with an expensive carbon monoxide detector, after even more recent deaths from dangerous gas appliances. In this case, he was responding to a case where number of young children had died. These deaths were completely preventable.
If we get moving on this, 10 years is the right timeframe to completely phase out gas. And we can start right away by not connecting any new estates or post-renovation reconnections to the gas network. New houses could be in excess of $5000 cheaper if they didn't have to be connected to the redundant gas network.
We can restrict the sale of gas heaters and offer incentives to switch from existing gas appliances to heat pumps and insulation.
Renewable ambient heat is Australian households biggest source of renewable resource and it's ready to be exploited today. Gas is dirty, inefficient and dangerous; our children and families will be safer, and breath easier, without it.
Matthew Wright is executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions
Comments on this article
Sure electric power sources
Sure electric power sources account for a big share of the market but I don't think they will ever be able to replace gas power sources, it's just not possible in some industries. Take the example of the used marine diesel engines. Can you imagine these powerful engines going all electric? I can't.
Woodheaters and global warming
David Hamilton asked why woodheaters increase global warming.
The main culprits are slow-combustion log-heaters. E.g., in Perth, central heating for the average house emits about 0.5 tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year. A super-duper reverse cycle system as recommended by Matthew might reduce that by two-thirds.
Compare that with methane emissions from the average domestic slow combustion heater - it's twice as bad for the climate - 1.2 tonnes, over a 100 year time horizon.
Even worse, climate scientists are now telling us that global warming over the next 20-40 years is critical - this is the time when the glaciers, icecaps and frozen methane will melt, potentially resulting in permanent climate change.
Over a 20 year horizon, slow combustion log heaters are up to 12 times worse than over 100 years. So the immediate damage to the climate - melting the icecaps, glaciers and frozen methane which could irrevocably change our climate – from a single log-heater is the equivalent of heating 24 similar homes with gas or 50-75 homes with super efficient reverse cycle.
This is if the wood is from a sustainable source. Burning unsustainably-produced firewood (80-90% of firewood on sale in the ACT was reported to be unsustainable) is much worse (see http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/greenhouse)
Sustainably-produced wood pellets (for pellet heaters or biomass electricity generation) are much better, but even this has been questioned (see tinyurl.com/biomass-GW)
Matthew Wright's response on Thermal Efficiency
Firstly thanks for responding on a subject you obviously do not know much but I'm happy to see you are acquiring a bit of knowledge in the process. If you read my statement carefully (you ought to when you are trying to sell an idea,however flawed it is!!),I said "äny fuel" which includes all,not limiting my argument to CCGTs only .Just to update your knowledge a bit further ,CCGT technology has progressed farther and 60% efficiency is already achieved commercially!!Unfortunately you need to invest capital in replacing our current fleet of power generators to bring all of them to that level of efficiency.You should be aware of the vetted average efficiency of our current generators in Australia.
You have become reckless in saying that 50% capacity factor is achieved with wind farms.I will be very grateful if you can send me some data where wind farms have achieved 50% capacity factor consistently.Look at the global average (both onshore and offshore installations).I am sure you will need to have a good grasp on the ground realities rather than tryu to pick up bits an pieces which can at best misguide people at large.
Gas in the commercial and industrial sectors
Matthew,
I agree that improved COPs for heat pumps tilts the efficiency and emissions balance from gas to electricity for most domestic uses of energy. Your examples were all from the residential sector. How do you see the situation in the commercial and industrial sectors?
Woodheaters increase global warming??
Dorothy,
Why do woodheaters increase global warming? Are you making this statement for all forms of woodheating and all wood fuels, or from the perspective of a specific case? I am interested in the details of your argument.
RE: Woodheaters increase global warming REPLY: Dorothy Robinson
Dorothy,
I totally concur. Woodheaters are shocking and should be outlawed in built up areas and possibly anywhere that has a connection to the electricity grid.
We have done a comparison of redgum heating to a wind turbine (with associated roads). We didn't even include transportation and storage of the wood and other double handling and even with that omitted the woodheater uses 80 times more land than wind to achieve the same outcome and that's when it's in a 53% average efficiency slow combustion heater setup. Many setups out there are far less efficient than that.
Heat Pump Reply Sam Richards
Reference how water system for Melbourne heating zone. Has an annual consumption of 16670MJ 4630kWh
So each day if you average it you are paying for 12.68 kilowatt hours.
At gas price that's 94.55 cents per day.
My edson is on a timer from 11PM to 7AM which works fine because renewable ambient heat (delayed solar energy is stored in the environment) The rate is 11.297cents (Somepeople are on 7 or 8cents for off peak hot water.
http://www.originenergy.com.au/files/CTP.pdf
My annual average performance would be COP 4.0 (I actually have evac tubes as well so It's actually less but I'll do a theoretical based on heat pump only FYI)
So (11.297 / 4) * 12.68 = 35.81cents per day
#1 So the operational cost of the heat pump is 58.74 cents cheaper per day than gas. And it is 75% renewble energy (That's a bonus)
#2 Gas heaters are sold in the millions. So once heat pumps are sold in the millions they will be $2000 each (see prices in europe for volume unit cost)
#3 Heat pumps with stainless tanks will last much longer than gas units. As gas units have high temperatures on a portion of the tank which damages it while heat pumps are much more gradual in the way they heat the water.
#4 You need to include the gas service fee which you don't need to pay if you have a heat pump currently something like 0.89cents per day.
#5 International price parity on gas is genuinely about to happen and seriously hit bills. ESAA predicts $8-$9 a gigajoule, but $12 and rising more likely.
Woodheaters increase global warming
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recommend phasing out woodheaters in developed countries to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change: http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/greenhouse
With more than half of current global warming caused by non-CO2 gases, and news that if we don't act now to reduce non-CO2 global warming, the Arctic would have ice-free summers by 2013 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm anyone with a woodheater should understand that they are causing up to 12 times as much global warming as heating the same house with gas -24 times as much as heating it with an efficient reverse cycle airconditioner.
Russell King was right - the WA’s government’s subsidy to remove woodheaters is a start. I think it has been extended from just gas, to reverse cycle and solar.
With the Australian Lung foundation recommending alternative heating because woodsmoke causes lung and heart diseases as well as cancers, and 80% of firewood trees grown unsustainably, if you have a woodheater, please consider removing it as soon as possible to reduce your impact on global warming, improve biodiversity and reduce the damage to our health from air pollution.
Heat Pump Reply Matthew Wright
Matthew, now let me throw some figures around with gay abandon OK?
Firstly, I am paying 24cents/kWh (and rising rapidly) so HP HW is 24/4 = 6cents/kWh. I will trust your figures for gas at 7.457cents/kWh equivalent.
A gas HWS stainless steel tank $1500 installed. HP HWS $4500 installed. 15 year lifespan for both, if you think your HP HWS can do better then maybe they can have a 20 year warranty? I think not.
So $3000 difference in capital cost, at 5.5% interest is $165 year (opportunity cost) against the HP. The $3000 is written off at 15years. So replacement cost for HP at 15years is $3000 more (in today’s dollars) $3000/15 = $200 year.
Total extra cost per year for HP HWS (just to own it) is $165 + $200 = $365 or $1 per day.
Therefore you have to save more than $1 per day on a HP before you are in front. At 7.457cents/kWh equivalent for gas all I can say is Good Luck.
There is also no reason for gas to rise in price unless it is taxed. The USA is awash with coal seam gas, so would we be if the Greenies allowed it. Untaxed, gas has the potential to collapse in price not go up.
Heat Pumps cheaper when you account for fuel Reply Sam Richards
Lets look at electrification of heat. Firstly Space heating Victoria (except alpine districts)
Cost of electricity 20cents. Annual average C.O.P from a Panasonic/ Toshiba/Daikin high end japanese inverter reverse cycle air conditioner 2.5-3.6kw delivered heat is conservatively 8.0
20c/8 = 2.5c /kWh
Compared to gas (ignoring the additional service fee which should be amortised to make this a true reflection of the cost - as everyone needs electricity but not everyone needs gas)
1.45c * 3.6 (to give kWh) * (1/0.70) (flu efficiency) = 7.457c kWh of heat.
What's worse for Australian's who are stuck gasping for air when they are being strangled by the expense of gas, is when Australia gets linked to international gas prices. At this point we will be in for $8 or even in excess of $12 a gigajoule
You could see the cost of gas at the household gas meter at least doubling under these kind of scenarios.
So what was 7.457c a kilowatt hour will now be 15cents and make off peak electric resistive floor heating look good by comparision.
In terms of hot water a seasonal C.O.P would be 4.0
So the cost of heating with a CO2 heat pump would be 20c/4 still cheaper than gas today at 5cents kWh.
But what you are paying for is a hedge, because gas will easily rise to 15cents a kilowatt hour, while electricity will get at most 30% more expensive to accomodate a full rollout of a 100% renewable grid and then will get cheaper after that.
Gas will always rise that's life unfortunately.
RE: Beyond Zero emissions needs more balanced approach to policy
Claude,
The detail is what sets Beyond Zero Emissions apart from the rest. We exist for our 200 volunteer researchers and other supporters. They volunteer their time, professional and academic knowledge and understanding to create the best scenarios for transitioning the economy.
We use commercially available now technology that is zero emissions for a number of reasons. Importantly commercially available now gives no wiggle room for policy makers to say their onside and do nothing. Wind, Solar Photovoltaic and Solar Thermal w/storage are the only technologies available off the shelf that fit this bill.
Enhanced Geothermal exists no where in the world in full operation and is unlikely to as drilling is very expensive, resource is diffuse and gets drawn down, fracking causing mini earth quakes can destroy wells by causig them to lose continuity. Exit temperatures are really low and the list goes on. Wave technology is not yet commercial but there are some promising technologies. Tidal is doable but limited in viable locations, barrage systems are a problem.
Beyond Zero Emissions is very clear that it supports Research and Development into all potentially viable renewable technologies. However it is against waiting on maturing of unproven tehnologies before we get going. We must get going now with the existing commercial renewables. Our report backs the use of all of these.
We are working on the next version of our plan and will keep revising our work and improving it with time, eventually on a yearly basis. We welcome other scenarios.
Beyond Zero emissions needs a more balanced approach to policy
I applaud Wright's + Beyond Zero's sentiment but abhor the detail. The stationary energy plan is particularly blinkered, narrow minded and illogical. They propose spending $370billion building 24 hour solar thermal, yet completely neglect emerging renewables such as wave power, tidal power or geothermal power.
Are Australians to ignore other renewables and clean tech because Matthew Wright demands we use only technology he approves, on the pure assertion that it is the best technology, right now?
Just as bad, in their zealotry Beyond Zero would deny the world sensible innovations such as ceramic fuel cells, syngas - innovations that could play an important role in the transition to a carbon constrained economy.
This is pie-in-the-sky stuff. I agree with the goal, but I find the supposition that Beyond Zero has already "got it figured" and knows exactly what we need to do, highly ridiculous.
Heat Pump Reply Matthew Wright
Matthew $4500 versus $1500?
What about the opportunity cost of $3000?
By the way, there are now large stainless steel tanked gas HW systems for $1500 or less installed. Australian made too.
Also, some heat pumps may have lasted 40 years back in the old days but my sister's large American two door fridge wore out the compressor in 8 years.
Sure in an electric only house get a HP HWS if you are flush with cash but in a "gas" home I think gas HW is the way to go.
Finally if you are getting a "huge quarterly bill" for HW I suggest three things, Low flow shower-heads, shorter showers and get rid of the Jacuzzi.
RE: ripping up gas = bad for the environment REPLY Paul Wilson
Paul,
There is not a first step to reducing carbon emissions. This is small thinking. We can do things concurrently. We do not say that we will not do anythig with hospitals and education until we have fixed roads. We do all these things concurrently.
Concurrent action on climate change is Energy Efficiency/Demand Side Management. Rolling out Grid Scale and local renewables. And completely shifting our industrial economy.
Gas produces more CO2 and CO2e for heating than a heat pump based heating system running on Brown Coal. You do the maths. COP 10 Annual performance on a small modular reverse cycle air conditioner running on inefficient brown coal. VS gas extraction, well workovers, well completion, exploration, on shore processing, compression, distribution pumping, fugitive losses (as much as 8%) and really poor flue efficiency of 70% (70% delivered 30% of heat up the flue). Gas loses in a big way. A bluegen unit is locking us into dirty dangerous fossil fuels. It's part of the old 19th century fossil fuel economy. If used with fossil fuels it is part of the problem. It has completely the wrong emissions profile, and cannot compete with Grid or local renewables combined with renewable ambient heat for hot water and space heating.
Especially when you consider you have to pay for an entire extra energy network just to have the thing operate.
RE: Heat Pump hot water? REPLY Sam Richards
Sam,
Cheap gas or electric hot water services with vitreous enamel tanks generally last 8-10 years.
The highest end heat pump is the Edson, it has a stainless tank which should last 30 years easily in good quality water conditions. My parents Fridge is still going 40 years later and it is based on heat pump technology and in a staionary application the same as a heat pump water service. That's selling into a niche market - the niche being quality Whisper Quiet, awesome performance, quality everything. I am guessing they do not yet have the volumes to get the costs down. These units are selling for $4500.
But the competitors who have the volume (and the lower quality products) are selling heatpumps for $2500 to $3000. It's the volume that gets the cost down.
Before I got rid of all the gas out of my life I was paying a huge quarterly bill, which is alway rising just to have the gas service connected to my house.
Once we close down gas and do not pay for it then we will pocket the savings. With your house being resistance electric a quality heat pump or even better heat pump boosted solar hot water heater will save you money in 4 or 5 years.
Interesting proposition
Interesting proposition Matt, especially if it means one less infrastructure to maintain.
To clarify we would still keep gas power stations right? That would let the gas be used in the safest and most efficient way. And I wouldn't want to be shutting down all that installed capacity in a rush!
I would also think that burning gas would increase particulate matter in the home. Would this have some impact on asthma rates? Recently asthma rates in children have started dropping, maybe decreasing use of wood fires or gas heaters (as well as reduced car emissions) is having an effect.
Also I think some of these comments are forgetting that removing gas for heating water and air only works if it is replaced by heat pumps so making the best use of ambient heat. Reverting to resistive water/air heaters is a step backwards, but this is not what Matt has suggested.
Heat Pump hot water?
My home unit is all electric but my parents are electric gas.
Reecently their 15 year old gas hotwater system was malfunctiong so they needed a new one. A large gas direct replacement unit was $1300. A heat pump version was many $1000s more.
They are a joke, expensive, moving parts that wear out, Even with rebates they are expensive.
Will heat pump units last 15+ years?
RE: Ceramic Fuel Cells and Electrocutions
Ceramic Fuel Cells has a complicated expensive product that produces electricity, heat and carbon emissions.
Whereas a heat pump connected to a grid that gets its power from Baseload Solar Thermal plants (Search for Torresol Energy's Gemasolar or Solar Reserve Tonopah) is zero emissions. It's straight forward. Leave the gas and coal in the ground and you get zero emissions. Ceramic Fuel Cells is cool technology but it is 20 years to late if its application is with dirty dangerous gas.
As for electricity and electrocutions, you can't run a laptop or television on gas. If you're installing a ceramic fuel cells unit then you're still delivering electricity to the house so the electrocution figure remains.
We can reduce the number of electrocutions in the electricity network and still power our laptops as well as our heat pumps. And we can eliminiate burns and housefires as a result of dangerous or faulty gas appliances.
The pink batts program had a lower rate of workplace deaths than installations in the industry prior to the program. That's a beatup from the Abott opposition and I will not be entertaining that.
Quoting from the gas regulatory website .
http://www.gtrc.gov.au/gas-industry/
"the obvious risk of burns, fires, explosions and asphyxiations. Incomplete combustion may occur whereby carbon monoxide can be produced. Carbon monoxide is a silent killer and is the major cause of gas related deaths
Since when has CS turned into info-mercial for Edson REPLY t h
t h,
Edson are the only company in Austrlaia at this stage offering a CO2 heat pump for hot water and the only company offering a heat pump boosted solar hot water system.
They need as many mentions as we can get them, and we need to encourage their competitors to offer the same product, so we can mention them also.
RE: Claim your next pay rise from BZE - REPLY Joseph Ellul
Nice article. Now you can claim your next pay rise from BZE.
We have a co-operative contract rate for our staff. We all get the one same rate at BZE and there are no/ have been no pay rises ever. We run on small donations from individuals and families who care about Australia's future.
I know that J Gillard will not object to it
Julia Gillard, does object because she is pro-gas. The Carbon price is about getting gas up, and that is what she believes and is backed up by Greg Combet and Martin Ferguson. Their game, like the opposition is gas.
RE: Thermal efficiency REPLY: Debasis Baksi
Production of electricity by burning any fuel will limit the conversion efficiency to 35% -40% in the first place,add on the transmission & distribution losses on the top of it and then multiply it by the efficiecy factor of the electrical gadgets.You will end up with an efficiency of less than half of that one gets from gas burning.
Please update your knowlege, conversion efficiency from gas combined cycle plant for instance is 55-60%. These figures are irrelevant for renewables such as solar thermal with storage and direct photovoltaics.
Induction cooktops are 90% efficient when measuring the electricity provided to run them direclty at the switch board versus the resultant heat int he food.
#2 Renewable energy does not use any fuel but mind you the cost of producing each unit of renewable energy is at least six times that of fossil fuel fired generation.The reliability of renewables is pathetic-wind availability is intermittent with maximum 35% availability
A silly argument as NSW coal plants run at 63% capacity factor and are backed up by gas and hydro for load following / peaking. Nothing new here. Wind sites in Australia range from 35% capacity factor to 50% in Geraldton WA. Wind turbines are super efficient energy generators.
RE: Why rip up gas networks REPLY Rick Somerton
I have lived in two environments. Gas and all electricity. I can say gas is the best choice from this consumers perspective.
Why do we need to go beyond zero emissions. In fact would't it be best to be at a balance where only net emissions are zero?
I think if we go to far we would risk catastrophic climate change. Would this not result in global cooling? Would that not be bad?
By the way has anyone worked out the temperature we should be targeting?
#1 Were you properly setup with modern renewable appliances. To be all electric and do it in a way that is better than gas you need (a)induction cooking (most electric houses have legacy electric resistive cooktops which are by far inferior to electric induction cooking. (b) You need heat pump hot water, or heat pump boosted solar hot water. Edson has a unit on the market (The first to market) that's why I am giving them a plug. I hope another vendor comes on the market as well. (c) heat pumps for heating if you have a heating requirement.
#2 Somewhere between 270 and 320ppm CO2e. We are currently at 392ppm CO2 and probably 470ppm CO2. We want to go beyond zero to get to a stable climate which is below the current atmospheric carbon level. We would have to go well below 270 to reach global cooling. Definitely no risk of that at the moment.
RE: burns?????? - Reply Alistair Spong
I think that the pot will still be hot, the liqiud inside the pot will still be close to boiling and so burns will probably continue!
I admire your ideas, but promoting renewable energy with this argument is somewhat silly to say the least and takes weight from your main argument, not to mention taking you seriously in the future.
Most burns are from the gas. Funny cooincidence I was staying at a colleagues place in Brisbane, and she had burns on her arm and I asked her about them. Turns out her gas cooker is old and warn out, and the flames shoot up the side of the pot. She has been constantly getting burnt by the naked gas flame.
Also the handles of pots on an induction cooktop aren't hot. Everything is cooler and the food is heated properly in a very controlled away.
In Japan All Electric houses have been getting huge momentum ovr the past decade, with something like 25% of new houses now all electric. They're marketed for safety, money saving, and air quality. Three things that are important to the Japanese and if Australians understood this stuff better would be important to Australians too.
RE: 800% performance heat pump?? REPLY: Del Smith
"Where can I get the product (make and model) that achieves this performance? Please give details. I have a 2.5kW unit that draws 800W (312%) but I would love to get 6.5kW from the same power. Then I will connect it to a Bluegen from Ceramic Fuel Cells and avoid the loss in the power grid."
#1 Toshiba RAS-07PKVP-E/PAVP-E 440watts in for the pump / 2500 watts out at 7 degrees C. Is a Heat Pump in heating mode (reverse cycle operation) On a seasonal basis it's cop rises to 10 in most climate in Australia including Melbourne and Sydney. That's because 7 degrees is not the average temperature outside while you are heating in these climates. Most of the time the unit is working in 11-15C depending on your household heating behaviour. In additon due to it being an inverter model it has a higher C.O.P. in part load operation.
#2 The South Australian gas network has 8% losses of Methane to atmosphere for example. There are losses in extraction, well completion, well workovers, exploration wells. There are parasites in pumping (Gas needs electricity to get around whereas electricity doesn't need gas to get around) Methane has a climate impact in the range of 21(IPCC 100 year) to 105 times (NASA 20 year).
A heat pump from Toshiba or Panasonic costs $500 unsubsidised to the consumer while a bluegen costs $20,000+
So in Summary the gas network has bigger losses than the electricity network. As we go renewables losses are likely to come down further in the electricity network
lol
This is a joke right?
WA subsidises gas heating installation
Wa Government offers sunsidies for gas installation to households if they are replacing woodheaters. A subsidy to replace carbon neutral with fossil fuel. So it can not be all bad.
ripping up gas = bad for the environment
I think ripping up our gas system would be disastrous for our carbon emissions and trying to reduce them. The first step to reducing our carbon emissions is efficiency, getting the most out of what we have, Electricity from coal plants certainly won't do this, gas is far more efficient in many areas.
Someone before mentioned bluegen which is a prime example of how gas appliances can reduce carbon emissions. From there website the unit has 60% efficiency in electricity and an extra 25% in water which makes it 85% at point of use (no transmission losses). This can eqaul (in victoria where I live) up to 14 tonnes of carbon savings per year (from their carbon calculator).
There are plenty of other technologies which use gas and provide greater efficiencies than coal powered electricity and, until we can achieve a realistic totally renewable energy economy, I think these gas powered technologies are a good stepping stone.
Edson
since when has Climate Spectator turned into an info-mercial for Edson?
Ceramic Fuel Cells, an Australian company has the most promising, efficient distributed electricity and heat generators in the world, which run on gas and unlike solar, generate 24/7. Why not give them a plug?
Like Zero Emissions, Mr Wright trots out a lot of really rubbery numbers, unreferenced, as pointed out by Del Smith
As a matter of interest, there were 155 deaths (electrocutions) in the 6 years from 2002 to 2008 (the only statistics I could find) and more than 2000 serious incidents which include house fires and serious injury due to electricity - this information is available at www.erac.gov.au. This period does not include the catastrophic pink batts program. There were 12 reported deaths attributed to reticulated gas supply and 37 house fires in the same period.
Derr
Induction cooktops don't get hot, which is why they are so efficient. There is no heat loss because the pot is what gets hot.
Your own ignorance is not a reason to ignore this considered article.
Induction cooking and heat pumps are the final straw
Even if you assume 35% efficiency at the coal fired power plant and transmissions, the induction cooker can get up to 90% efficiency, so that is approaching the overall efficency of the gas cooker for heating food. The pot itself does the heating so there are no losses their that wouldn't be lost on a gas cooker anyway.
That means with a combination of solar hot water boosted with heat pumps, and reverse cycle air conditioners for heating, there's no need for gas to the home.
But the equation gets more lopsided when electricity gets greener as more generation comes from renewables or if the user chooses to buy 100% renewable power and/or supplements it with their own solar panels.