Interesting article about the future of gas stoves

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

#13

"...Berkley has become the first city in California to ban natural gas in its new structures beginning in 2019."

That's good news. Excellent news.

---------

#23  "So now, they are burning gas to generate steam to spin a turbine to drive a generator to create power to transmit" 

 

That is certainly better because the gas is not inside the home and

a residential gas pipe system is not installed in a neighborhood AND

it's much cheaper and easier to install one large  commercial site like a power plant AND

a commecial operator has other safety precautions on site in the event of an leak or explosion so few lives will be affected.

 

The U.S. had the electric grid Before it had the gas grid.  Also, the electric grid is more important than a gas grid.

 

If they had just focused on making gas power plants from the beginning(and other commecial installations) and NOT installing gas residentially, we'd all be better off.

 

 

There is no way I will live with gas in my home or near my home again.

 

If I bought a property with gas lines on it all gas appliances would be removed, the lines removed, and I would have the gas company remove the lateral.  Then install heavy insulation, baseboard heating, and solar electric.

 

----------

 What's Calif. going to do now that gas is on the outs?  All new homes are required to have a solar array installed.  Also, the new electric code requires all new homes to have at least one electric car plug in the garage.   AWESOME !

Get rid of that stinky, dangerous gas. Just as previous generations have moved in, got rid of the horses and wagon, ditched the fireplace and coal, got rid of the asbestos octopus in the basement, stopped lighting their homes with candles, ....we continue the evolution.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/6740...r panels will be a,often shaded from the sun.
bradfordwhite-2021021814095909967_1.png
 
It's funny what makes us cringe. Some here have outright hatred for gas, for me the thought of electric baseboards makes me want to run in the opposite direction. Could not comprehend what it would cost to heat a large home.Gas for me is cheap cheap cheap compared to electric and even water. I am totally comfortable with my forced air heat -properly done. I like my gas cooktop but if not for cost would be amenable to induction, never conventional electric.

The solution for national energy plans will have to include all forms of energy as long as it's clean. Gas can power turbines and still be clean, and wind can wwork well in the cold - both just need to be properly designed and installed.
 
Matt I'm curious, you stated "...electric baseboards makes me want to run in the opposite direction. Could not comprehend what it would cost to heat a large home..."

 

Is it correct to say that the electric baseboards have you thinking of other alternatives because of the cost to use them?

Or is there something about the baseboard heaters themselves that you have an issue with?

If  it cost half as much to use electric baseboards and get the same amount of heat you'd get from using gas, would you then want to use the electric baseboards?

 

It's certainly fair to be concerned about monthly costs.  We all have to deal with.

 

----------

 

For me and an increasing number of other people, I know that in some regions, gas heat would be cheaper per thermal unit compared to electric.

For that matter burning scrap wood or coal may well be cheaper than either gas or electric, per thermal unit.

 

But I don't want any of those combustible heating types.  That's based on safety concerns, pollution, indoor mess, indoor air quality, noise from equipment used to incinerate, and the hassle to maintain. 

 

With electric just turn on a switch or thermostat and you have clean, quiet heat, indefinitely.     

100% efficient too.  I get all my moneys worth, nothing goes out a chimney. 

 

No filters to change, no fan vibrating annoyingly, no heat exchanger to crack and leak poisonous gases in the house, no starter mechanism to fail in the middle of the night, no expensive computer control board to short out.

All these repair costs are just that.  They are costs and it's not unusual for them to be thousands of dollars depending on what you can fix yourself.  

Those costs COUNT. 
 
<span style="font-family:Georgia">
«Natural gas appliances are still more efficient but sadly there are people who won’t agree with that. Still miles cheaper to use natural gas here in Southern California.»

People need to keep in mind that efficiency and cost are two completely different and independent things.

Something can be 100% efficient and more expensive, something may be very cheap and less than 30% efficient.

Just as one small example, it used to be very cheap to run a car engine which did less than 10 miles per gallon. Those engines were way less than 30% efficient, but sufficiently cheap to run no one cared. New engines produce either way more power for the same amount of fuel, or use way less fuel for the same amount of power, thus being cheaper to run. When fuel went from less than 50 cents per gallon to way more than 2 dollars per gallon, people noticed and it made a huge difference, and right now most people are in favor of more efficient stuff instead of just "eh, it's cheap to run".

That's to say nothing about how some things are very counter-intuitive to begin with: electricity, currently (no pun intended), is more expensive than natural gas, or gasoline, but it's still cheaper to run many electric cars because they can do stuff that a lot of vehicles powered only by fossil fuel can not do, like use a generator to brake the car and store the energy for future use. Some people, who are even luckier, get nearly free electricity from their solar panels too, so the costs drops even further.

Please, please, please, stop using cost in place of efficiency because after all the lies and half-truths we've heard in the last 5-ish years or so, people will stop taking you seriously if you conflate the two, or, worse, keep substituting cost for efficiency.

That's not how physics (or chemistry, or engineering etc) work.

Thank you.
</span>
 
<span style="font-family:georgia">
«I'm generalizing so please correct me where I'm wrong, but it seems like appliance regulation standards are nationwide despite the fact that different areas have different resources and needs. »

The problem with "localized" codes is different for farms, suburbs, cities, which can (and probably should) take into consideration local climate and resources availability, as opposed to manufacturing, where economies of scale make things much different.

It's not economically viable to produce just a few cars, for example, for California, which needs a much more stringent pollution control than, say, Massachusetts, and even MA needs a better pollution control than some random sparsely populated place like Wyoming or Montana.

This is one of the reasons that cars, washing machines, computers etc are getting more efficient, and even if that's not the most important thing for people who live in places with more/cheaper resources, it benefits the entire nation (and the planet too) for everyone.

I, for one, appreciate the fact that I can have more efficient equipment and save my dollars for retirement because people in other places needed it more than I did.

Please note, just because an appliance takes longer to complete a task, it doesn't mean it uses more power. In fact, in using less water, for example, clothes washers and dishwashers actually cut the amount of power they use way down.

Heating the water is the most expensive thing washers need energy for, so, cut the water usage in half, you cut the energy use in half.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the motors for newer more efficient washers are also less powerful than the older systems, so, even if the wash cycle takes longer, it still uses way less energy.
</span>
 
<span style="font-family:georgia">
«It's funny what makes us cringe. Some here have outright hatred for gas, for me the thought of electric baseboards makes me want to run in the opposite direction. Could not comprehend what it would cost to heat a large home.Gas for me is cheap cheap cheap compared to electric and even water.»

I can't speak for others, but I do not have a hatred for gas. I specifically chose a home to buy/move into because it was connected to the gas piping in a neighborhood that was long established and had it for decades.

I just happen to think that science is important, and we should use it to our advantage.

Just like pumping water around (which I like and approve of, I like running water being available, I also chose my home location because it was also connected to water and sewage and I wouldn't have to deal with a well or a septic system) is expensive and energy-intensive, pumping gas is not free, it takes a lot of energy to do.

So, all things considered, what stops people from using natural gas and start doing things with electricity is the cost not anything else. If aliens landed on Earth tomorrow and gave us free clean "blue energy" like they say in Sci-Fi books/movies/TV, we'd drop fossil fuels faster than the proverbial hot potato.

Another thing stopping energy-efficient homes is banks/financing. It's very hard to finance building a home which is extremely energy-efficient, because bankers get leery of places which do not need a heating plant, for example.

There are homes which are essentially capable of getting all the heat they need in the coldest time of winter by turning on a hair dryer, they literally need less than 1,800W to stay at 70F/21C even when at -40F/-40C outside. They couldn't get financed, so the owner just added a furnace to the home to pacify the bankers -- it rarely turns on, which they don't mind because then they don't need to turn on a hair dryer or space heater, which are way less safe.

Things are improving a bit because places like Denmark, Germany, Netherlands etc gave a huge incentive for net-zero homes and now whatever they call homes that generate more energy than they use ("net-positive"? "positive energy"?) are making the concept more popular but we need to change some regulations to banking if we want to see change for the better in this area too.

A long time ago, people were quick to say that installing more insulation in their homes was not a "good investment", because they had quick/cheap access to fuel, but that is not true anymore -- not only we know that fuel is now a significant expense, but we also know that when we burn fuel at home (as opposed to a "centralized" plant which has expensive pollution control) we spread products of combustion which are harmful to ourselves and our neighbors. Even when it looks "clean burning" with a "well tuned blue flame", gases still get produced which are harmful.

While I'm very sensitive to the cost (we do not have endless amounts of money, and we'll need to save for retirement, for example) I'm also all for making things better for everyone else too, because the folks who make less money than we do also deserve a good life and a healthy life.
</span>
 
My aversion to electric baseboard heat is simply the cost. My gas forced air heat is great. I have 95%+ furnace, variable speed blower, my thermostat circulates the air every 15--20 minutes so I have no cold spots in the house. I used to do continuous circulation but found the intermittent method work almost as well at lower energy cost.

Cost-wise without heat- using summer as a base line- I pay about $20/m for gas. That is for my gas water heater set to a high temp, gas dryer, gas cooktop and gas grill. I do not believe I could get anywhere near that cost with electric appliances.

I feel lucky to have a very stable utility service. Rare to have an electrical outage, gas never goes out. and when there is a problem it's quickly resolved. Perfect -no. but better than many areas of the country.
 
Wow, Macomb good and I like how you know CID = Liters

Really now, if we could just save our electricity by turning off unnecessary lighting and use less plastic I think we could run engines of 8.2 liters I often say that to the people wanting of doing excessive bagging of think a bottle of wine needs its own bag and wonder why it can’t be put among the cracker and cereal boxes...

— Dave
 
Gas Vs Electric

It is extremely expensive to heat with an electric furnace in cold climates. It just isn't cost effective. In my last apartment I would pay $200/month electric bills in the winter with the thermostat set to 58F. We had put plastic insulating film over all the windows and the patio door. We put a new seal around the front door all in an effort to lower the bills. Now I live in an apartment with a gas furnace and pay $28/ month in the summer and $38/m in the winter with the thermostat at 65F.

All things are not equal between the two apartments, so it isn't near a perfect test, but I am extremely thankful to have a gas furnace (especially this year). People usually just can't afford to heat with electricity in cold climates. USA is a massive country with many different climates and energy resources. Different solutions work in different areas. California seems to enjoy being on the cutting edge of regulation and new requirements. Hopefully whatever they do works out for you all.
 
Yes Dave,

that'd be a kick! LED lights save even if left on, and gas is headed toward $3 a gallon again thanks to recent weather, and speculation. My 3.5 litre AWD Ford Edge is thirsty enough, especially in city driving, which is about all I do lately. Under 12,000 miles in 3 years. It rarely even gets warmed up. Lease up in May. I won't pay more for the same vehicle.
I won't pay the same for an Escape, too small. If they won't deal off to Jeep, or Chevrolet. Ford can keep the $400. I get Employee pricing on any Big 3 make.
Bottles of wine need cushion same as my wallet!
 
<span style="font-size: 14pt; color: #008000;">The "restrictions" placed on gas service to new homes and buildings apply only to Berkeley (which gets all the press), Santa Rosa, Healdsburg, Windsor (?), Palo Alto, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Mountain View and Brisbane...none of which are large metropolitan areas. They are not <span style="text-decoration: underline;">California</span>. Here in Palm Springs, gasoline powered leaf blowers (pretty much standard equipment for gardeners) are banned for use, yet you wouldn't hear someone say "California has banned gas leaf blowers."</span>
 
Huh?

Berkeley, Palo Alto, Mountain View and Santa Rosa are all metropolitan areas, maybe not mega large, but they are large cities and they most certainly are California.

 

For the life of me I don’t know why people that don’t even live in California have so much interest in what we choose to do regarding gas appliances.  

 

Every municipality has the right to choose what they will allow and what building regulations and restrictions they will  have regarding energy use and conservation.  

 

And you are absolutely correct Joe, just because Santa Rosa has banned gas service for new construction doesn’t mean all of California has banned it.  

 

BTW, I read in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat last week that Windsor is having second thoughts on banning gas service for new construction and this new law may not go into effect.

 

If some other state or city chooses to make a particular law about banning gas service, if I don’t live there and it doesn’t effect me I couldn’t care less.  

 

* But on second thought I do care, because all states have an effect on Climate Change nationwide and worldwide.   Amended from original post.

 

Eddie

[this post was last edited: 2/20/2021-19:14]
 
"For the life of me I don’t know why people that don’t even live in California have so much interest in what we choose to do .."

People are interested because, as many other people have noted, California is a power house trend setter. If one wants to know what's hot and what the world will look like in a few years, you look to California.

Nobody cares what's going on in Maine, or Connecticut, or S. Dakota, and less and less what's happening in NYC. California is awesome. If the state were it's own country it would be the 5th Largest economy on the planet.
It's the tail that wags the dog in the U.S. Our country would be at a huge loss without California.

Why do you think all the narcissistic idiots in texas are so jealous of California?
In their simple little minds they want to be California, but thank goodness they will never be up to the task.

Even though I have lived there only a few years of my life, I've been heavily influenced by it and would happily still consider it my home.

It must be the California mystic energy because for L.A., even though I would never want to live there again, sometimes I'm so intrigued with it's development over the years and have to spend some time researching and street surfing.

bradfordwhite-2021022018382700422_1.png
 
For the communities, in whatever state they may be in , where they've banned petroleum based equipment, I'm so impressed.

positive improvements
 
Keith

I’m a proud native Californian and I realize that we have a great influence on the rest of the nation, no one needs to remind me of this. But I do appreciate your cheerleading for my home state! And you’re right, California is great!  We are the equivalent of some small nations.  I really get tired of those from other states criticizing our state for attempting to reverse Climate Change.

 

However, people in other states can take care of their own backyards.  If they don’t like the forward thinking ideas of California they don’t need to implement them, thats their choice.  

 

*But it would be a shame if they don’t follow our lead, because Climate Change is a nationwide and worldwide problem that we all need to face head on and do our best to reverse it before its too late.  This amendment was added after being reminded of whats really important by Keith’s reply #46.

 

Eddie
 
"I really get tired of those from other states criticizing our state for attempting to reverse Climate Change."

Those are probably the same ignorant people who lack proper health care coverage and resist legislation for Universal Health care because people they chose to follow lied to them and said it would be a bad thing.

No one in their proper mind would resent those who are trying to make life better.

There are leaders and there are followers. Followers often will balk when the game plan isn't clear. Leaders need to make sure propaganda isn't confusing the public, such as we've seen with the recent Jan 6th incident.
 
All good points Eddie, Keith,

and my feelings correspond! Colder weather in the south and near the equator is a result of warming. The north has been warmer in recent years. Before each ice age, it has been warmer. Carbon dating proved it. There will be another.
Nathan Philip Rothschild is British. He is among the 40 to 50 wealthiest in the world who have powerful iunfluence on banks, etc.
While nothing is free, the USA, some of western Latin America, and a small handfull of underdeveloped nations are the only ones without universal care. England began it in 1946 broke from WW2.
It won't be my problem by the time hardly anyone can afford private insurance. I'll be dead.
So what do you think corporations, governments, and the lagre care insurers and provider conglomerates will do?
I follow three rules; Pay attenton to whats going on, read between the lines, and follow the money!
 

Similar threads

Ultramatic
Appliances: The Future is Battery Powered
2 3
Replies
83
Views
1K
tolivac
T
T
NYT on Induction Cooking
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
vacerator
V
Unimatic1140
Everyone please read: Introducing the DAILY DOCTRINE DISPENSER!!
2
Replies
49
Views
519
Unimatic1140
Unimatic1140
Unimatic1140
An Open Discussion about Copyright, automaticwasher.org/vacuumland and the Internet
2
Replies
31
Views
380
aldspinboy
aldspinboy
K
Let's Talk About Made in the USA
Replies
28
Views
205
tolivac
T

Latest posts

Back
Top