Hacker News Reader

Comment by letitbeirie | Hacker News Reader

Depending on where the furnace is located, it can be cheaper and have a lower carbon footprint.

In my area of the US for example, gas costs 32￠/therm, which equates to 1.1￠/kWh.

Electricity on the other hand costs 6.4￠-10.9￠/kWh (depending on time of day), and while a third of it comes from renewables, another third of it comes from coal, so it ends up being net worse for the environment than just burning the gas.

View on HN

How long will you operate this? Coal will be gone in a few years.

Even with gas it’s more efficient to burn the gas for heat yourself than for the power plant to burn the gas to operate a turbine which you then use to generate resistive heat.

Why are you comparing electricity production via fossil fuels and not via renewables.

If your electricity is actually generated by renewables that’s another situation entirely.

If this does not happen in the next 15 years in developed countries then we have a giant problem. I understand that installing a gas heater right now might be a reasonable personal decision, but I don't understand how one could argue it's the right thing to do from a climate protection angle.

It's the right thing to do from a climate protection angle if a significant proportion of your electricity is generated by natural gas, which is what I said to begin with.

It is, but only temporarily. Will you switch it over to a heat pump immediately after the cut off point is reached or will you operate till the end of its life before you replace it? If you keep operating it, will it really emit less over its lifetime than switching to a heat pump right now? Making the assumption that today's electricity mix is a steady state is flawed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com