Yes, I know it's not technically just methane, but methane is its primary constituent.
"Fossil gas" is also probably a suitable term, but I like "fossil methane" because it gets that spooky chemical name benefit.
Fried_out_Kombi 5 points 3 years ago
That's why I specified fossil methane, the stuff we're getting out of the ground to burn in power plants. I'm all for burning non-fossil methane (e.g., from compost piles) for reducing the impact of those.
Yucky_Dimension 8 points 3 years ago
Still, stating it's 40 times more potent than carbon dioxide also feels deceptive. While it's technically true, it's not a fair comparison. I'd like to clarify here, that I'm not defending gas as an energy source. I don't own a gas stove or anything in that regard.
Fried_out_Kombi 9 points 3 years ago
I know what you mean, but methane leaks are a real problem, so while combusting it produces mostly CO2, all the infrastructure and pipelines bringing the gas to where it's burnt leak a loooot of methane. And methane is overall the second-most responsible greenhouse gas in anthropogenic climate crisis (after carbon dioxide), although a big chunk of that methane is from industrial animal agriculture of course.
Yucky_Dimension 3 points 3 years ago
That's what I mean. The biggest source of methane and therefore one of the biggest contributor to climate change is cattle. Which could be considered "natural", but even if we deny it that label, as it is clearly man-made, we wouldn't refer to it as fossil fuel. I'm not sure how much of an impact those methane leaks have on the climate compared to the steady release of agricultural gas, but I bet it's not exactly helping.
Red_October 22 points 3 years ago
The name Natural Gas arose long before there was any effort to greenwash anything. It was in comparison to Coal Gas, which was artificially produced from coal and in use before Natural Gas came to market. Acting like this is some kind of greenwashing propaganda conspiracy just makes you look ignorant, and as a result it makes the whole movement look bad.
Pyr_Pressure 1 point 3 years ago
Also it's ironically the opposite of what OP was accusing the fuel industry of doing. Instead of green washing they're trying to Brownwash (greywash? Blackwash?) the term.
BloodForTheBloodGod 1 point 3 years ago
In a lot of cases, winning is what matters, and not moral purity.
Why shouldn't a good cause adopt a better name when opposing something?
SmoothIsFast 22 points 3 years ago
It's called natural gas because before we got it from the ground we got it by heating coal until it gave off gas and piping that to homes and businesses.
Natural gas is natural because it naturally occurs in the earth and is not distilled from coal like coal gas is.
Uranium3006 4 points 3 years ago
That is the true etymology of natural gas, we can call it whatever we want including "bottled farts"
Twelve20two 4 points 3 years ago
The Bitumin Business
IWantToFuckSpez 9 points 3 years ago
People also still believe that gas is better for cooking food. Because it gets hot “faster”. These dumbasses have never heard of an induction stove. They think every electric stove is an electric coil stove.
I can’t believe the dumb gas propaganda like that rap song https://youtu.be/FJRQo5aawho actually worked.
Fried_out_Kombi 15 points 3 years ago
I've cooked with electric coil, gas, and induction. Each for at least a few months' time, so it's not just that I never had the time to learn with each. I can honestly say I hate gas stoves. They heat up the surroundings so much. Those old, plain electric coils suck, but in a slightly different way. Modern electric coils under that glass/ceramic smooth surface are pretty decent. Induction is god-tier, though. When I have own my own home, I'm 100% getting an induction stove.
silverdk 5 points 3 years ago
Om my experience they heat faster than gas for stuff like boiling water. The only thing has is better at is cooking with a wok because you want the sides to get as well and lighting alcohol on fire to burn it off but I do that maybe once every 2 years so..
jscummy 2 points 3 years ago
I've got an induction stove in my new place and my biggest complaint is that it gets too hot. I sear steaks with it barely halfway.
First time I tried to cook with it all the way up my apartment was filled with smoke.
spankinspinach 1 point 3 years ago
Could it be a calibration issue? My experience with modern stoves (for me, the oven) is that it was badly calibrated, so they oven never got properly hot
too_high_for_this 0 points 3 years ago
Do you have the right pans? They're probably not thick enough.
Also, you don't have to let them heat up much at all. It basically uses magic to just make the pan hot, like, instantly.
Uranium3006 1 point 3 years ago
To be fair and induction stove costs roughly double want an old school electric does but if you're concerned about good cooking and you're not just a bachelor boiling water for survival food it's probably going to be worth the extra cash, and they both plug into the same Outlet behind the oven range combo so it's an easy and painless switch if you want to have the best experience
alvvayson 2 points 3 years ago
That's only because the USA is behind on cooking tech.
The cheapest range in the US on the IKEA US site is a $699 gas range (excluding tax). Ceramic is $749 and induction is $1399.
Meanwhile, onI the Dutch ikea site a cooktop (excluding oven, since we decided to get rid of the whole range concept in Europe), the cheapest gas stove is €119 while induction is €269. We don't do ceramic anymore. Prices including tax.
So yes, induction is still expensive in the US. but ceramic is not and spending $50 to not inhale gas fumes and having an easy to clean surface is worth it. I used one for a year, it's great.
But if you do have the money, I'd go for induction. And when the US catches up in technology, "double" won't really matter when it's just €150 more.
And if you really want to be cheap, those Tillreda single units cost $80.
Uranium3006 3 points 3 years ago
here in the USA combo oven-range units reign supreme, although some fancier kitchens in new houses have stuff like induction burners built into the countertops and stuff like that. so you kinda gotta buy them as a package. my apartment has the coil electric kind but it's an older unit. the building owns it so we'd have to ask the for permission to replace it. that's one issue here, perhaps half of Americans don't get any say in green building upgrades. we gotta combine carrots like subsidies and tax breaks with sticks like mandates to get landlords to upgrade stuff
alvvayson 1 point 3 years ago
Lol, landlords suck everywhere.
Ranges also reigned supreme in Europe 15 years ago.
It just takes time, but eventually induction will replace everything. In the meantime, cooking on gas isn't that bad.
In terms of government action, I think the best would be to just regulate rents. In most schemes, slightly higher rents are allowed for modernized rentals. But rents are just too high at the moment.
too_high_for_this 2 points 3 years ago
It's not about how long it takes, what matters is constant, even heat. Electric coil stoves turn on and off to regulate heat so you get crazy fluctuations.
Gas doesn't have that problem. Good induction stoves don't, either, but they're still hella expensive. And you need the right pots and pans or you will have a bad time.
There's a reason basically every restaurant in the world uses gas cooktops.
someguy3 -1 points 3 years ago
so you get crazy fluctuations
Having used nothing but electric (except 2 years), no you don't lol. That's a ridiculous claim. It's almost like they can change the timing so that it makes no difference!
Restaurants want to flambe and all that nonsense.
too_high_for_this 2 points 3 years ago
Yeah, they can, but they don't. Every electric stove I've ever used has had long pauses between cycles. My current (heh) electric stove can barely boil water and getting constant heat for like a custard or hollandaise is literally impossible. And it's not an old POS, it's a newish Samsung glass top.
I literally boil water in a 120v kettle faster than my stove. A gas stove boils faster than both.
But obviously induction wins. Something like 95% efficiency plus temp control. I just wish they didn't whine like a CRT TV.
5714 8 points 3 years ago
Production and transport of fossil gas actually often does exactly that and there are/were satellites tasked with tracking methane emissions (there are also loads of natural fossil sources, sometimes their leaking is anthropogenic).
dmention7 5 points 3 years ago
Yeah I was mostly poking fun at idea that someone would see this and get the entirely opposite message OP intended:
Methane worse than CO2?
BURN ALL THE NATURAL GAS
....
Global warming solved!
I half expected to come back to a whole pile of downvotes lol
Mostly_Frogs 6 points 3 years ago
PatFussy 4 points 3 years ago
If you look at global warming potential over a 100 year tome period, methane emission is 36 times that of an equivalent mass of CO2. Methane comes out of the atmosphere by reacting with hydroxyl radicals, oxidising to form CO2. 88% of the methane reacts this way, meaning that one gram of methane will form 2.4 grams of CO2.
Bishma 2 points 3 years ago
And Amazon is spewing it into the air like it's nothing.
Lowered_lifted 1 point 3 years ago
There's a shit ton of it about to bubble up from the oceans as it's currently in frozen clathrates and when it melts warming will be even more accelerated
climatememes
@lemmy.world
2917
144
78
The climate of the memes of the climate!
Planet is on fire!
mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.
rules:
no slurs, be polite
don't give an excuse to pollute
no climate denial
and of course: no racism, no homophobia, no antisemitism, no islamophobia, no transphobia
go to feed...
climatememes
@lemmy.world
2917
144
78
The climate of the memes of the climate!
Planet is on fire!
mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.
rules:
no slurs, be polite
don't give an excuse to pollute
no climate denial
and of course: no racism, no homophobia, no antisemitism, no islamophobia, no transphobia
go to feed...
Feel free to correct me, but this sounds incredibly ill-informed. Yes, methane itself is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, far more potent than CO2. But there are several types of "natural" gas. You are talking about fossil fuels, the type of methane either trapped underground or beneath the arctic perma frost. Methane is created by decomposing organic matter though. Livestock is one of the biggest producers of natural gas as far as I know. If released into the atmosphere, methane would be devastating, as it takes about ten years for it to degrade into CO2 first. I don't know the impact of using "natural" gas compared to other kinds of fossil fuels. Burning it definitely seems like the lesser of two evils though. A quick Google search says that "emissions per unit of energy produced from gas are around 40% lower than coal and around 20% lower than oil." While this is far from perfect, putting it on the same level seems either ignorant or disingenuous.
TLDR: Methane doesn't necessarily mean fossil fuels. Burning methane and using it as an energy source is less bad than releasing it directly into the atmosphere.
Again, if there's anyone with actual knowledge on the subject, please correct me.
save