> Net CO2 is one measure of badness, but damage to human health is likely a more relevant one personally.
This thread is about deploying thermoelectric generators on stoves which are already in use. Smoke is already been emitted since ever. The value proposition is to seep a bit of the thermal energy already being produced to generate electricity. Thus the options on the table are a) keep a stove burning and use that to generate electricity, b) keep the same stove burning and run a fossil fuel generator on the side.
How can option b) be assumed to be cleaner?
> Natural gas is almost clean by comparison
Does this assumption take into account the environmental impact of bottling and shipping natural gas to these small villages?
Thermoelectric generators convert heat to electricity, but heat is generally the point of these stoves. In the end it’s almost guaranteed to burn more wood either because you get less heat or because you want more electricity. “b)” is therefore cleaner because of thermodynamics Aka a lack of free energy
“environmental impact” is just one of many impacts. If burning wood means you die 20 years sooner that’s likely more relevant to you than just about anything else. Of course other people you don’t know dying 20 years sooner is rarely a concern, thus different priorities.
This thread is about deploying thermoelectric generators on stoves which are already in use. Smoke is already been emitted since ever. The value proposition is to seep a bit of the thermal energy already being produced to generate electricity. Thus the options on the table are a) keep a stove burning and use that to generate electricity, b) keep the same stove burning and run a fossil fuel generator on the side.
How can option b) be assumed to be cleaner?
> Natural gas is almost clean by comparison
Does this assumption take into account the environmental impact of bottling and shipping natural gas to these small villages?