No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
You just answered your own question. The techniques for running gas lines into houses and hooking them up to furnaces are very refined at this point, it can be done safely.
I guess my question was more about the “why” for gas lines. I mean it’s a lot of extra effort to put them in place and maintain them when we already have electric coming into the houses.
Oh, probably because it's cheaper and more efficient.
If you wanted to use the gas in a gas power plant to produce electricity to run an electric heater, there's a bunch of steps where energy gets lost. The turbine and generator isn't 100% efficient and the transformers and transmission wires lose energy along the way to your house. Whereas burning something directly for heat is nearly 100% efficient, the only waste is whatever heat gets carried away by the exhaust. Which isn't much with a modern high-efficiency furnace. I've got one of those and every once in a while I knock icicles off of the exhaust vent outside when I pass it. They use countercurrent exchange to keep all the heat inside the house.
Ahhhh. That makes sense. I guess I had always assumed that it would be more efficient to have one centralized “burning of the gas” event to create and distribute electricity than numerous individual burning events to create heat but it makes sense that due to the efficiency of just converting gas to heat directly it would be more efficient.
There are some cities that do things a third way; they have a centralized facility that burns the gas (or other fuels) to generate electricity, and then also pipe the heat out to the city in the form of heated water or steam running through insulated underground pipes. Buildings tap into those pipes and run it through radiators. That has the potential to be even more efficient because you're using what would otherwise be "waste" heat, but it depends on a relatively compact city to avoid losing too much heat while sending it through the pipes. I understand this is not uncommon in Eastern European and Russian cities. I'm not familiar with the details, though, so if you want to know more about this I'd recommend Googling around a bit.
New York has one of, if not the largest steam systems like that. A pretty significant chunk of Manhattan is hooked up to it.
Although it should be pointed out that those systems aren't without their own risks, there have been a handful of pretty bad explosions and such caused by that steam system. Not saying to knock it, any system where you're trying to distribute a large amount of energy has the potential for some catastrophic accidents to happen, it's all about weighing the relative pros and cons.
They're also pretty common on a smaller scale for college campuses, industrial complexes, etc. places with a lot of different outbuildings and such, it can be easier/cheaper/more efficient to have one central boiler room/house and pipe steam around than it is to have heaters in ever building.
Also, bit of a tangent, but many moons ago my dad was a pipefitter/steamfitter, and worked with a lot of steam systems, and from what he's told me about those days it sounded like absolute hell having to go into cramped service tunnels around searing hot steam pipes, all kinds of dust and asbestos everywhere, rats, high humidity, etc. that was probably almost 50 years ago, but I suspect things probably haven't improved all that much since then, so kudos to the people who are willing to put up with all of that.
This is no longer correct. We have heat pumps that can be more than 100% efficient, even air-sourced heat pumps in -30° weather. There are still many places where this will still be more expensive than a gas furnace.
I don't know how you're measuring efficiency, but a heat pump with greater than 100% efficiency lets you build a perpetual motion machine. That's not possible.
You just change the definition of your isolated system. It takes less energy to move heat from one place to another than it does to excite matter to release energy. For resistive or combustion heating, the isolated system is your house, plus the gas if using gas heat. For heat pumps, you include the rest of the world.
As an aside, heat pumps are generally considered good when they reach 300% efficiency, i.e., when every watt of energy expended adds 3 watts of heat to your home.