San Francisco Bay Area phasing out NG furnaces & water heaters by 2029

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

Help Support :

bradfordwhite

bradfordwhite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
3,878
Location
central U.S.
"Phased out" is an inaccurate term. Existing natural gas fired water heaters and furnaces may continue to be used indefinitely, until they break down and can no longer be repaired. It's not as if anyone is coming around to demand these things be replaced with electric versions.

 

I imagine there also may be a bit of a gray market in water heaters and furnaces imported from elsewhere going on in future. 

 

 

 
 
Also, if I'm not mistaken, in the case of natural gas fueled home heaters, such as in my home, the heat from the burner is sent up into a sort of heat exchange, where it is transferred to recirculating indoor air. So there shouldn't be any contamination of the home air with the byproducts of natural gas combustion. And even those are quite limited.

 

I figure most gas fueled clothes dryers do not use such a heat exchange system, as all the fumes are typically expelled from the home via a duct to the outdoors (as is the case here). This is followed by an infusion of fresh air through the dryer, which should flush out any contaminants from the fabrics by the time the process is completed.

 

At least that's my understanding.
 
Phasing out natural gas, furnaces, and water heaters

In the California bay area.

This is a good start. Water heaters and furnaces. Use a lot of gas, so this is one of the biggest polluters that can be controlled over time.

They are probably not going to worry about gas stoves because it’s a very personal thing to a lot of people, even though they also cause problems, and gas dryers burn much cleaner than Ranges and again it’s a pretty small user of natural gas.

Gas dryers are so efficient because there is no heat exchanger 100% of the heat you pay for you actually dries your clothing .

Gas water heaters are typically only about 70% efficient. The risk going up the flu, gas furnaces can be anywhere from 80 to 95% efficient

In a mild climate like the bay area. Heat pumps work extremely well and are cheaper to run even at your high electric rates.

Heat pump water heaters are also very efficient and economical to operate and long lived.

John
 
Exactly, ban on sales

And not even entirely, exactly. Effectivley, yes, but not directly.

No new NOx emitters are alowed to be sold in that product department.
Meaning - theoretically - if someone was to build a system of basically complete NOx capture, they could still be gas fired.

Any existing devices may be used as long as they are safe to operate and may be repaired.

On the typical argument of "Oh, condensing boilers are SO efficient!"

Given there are basically 2 types of gas power plants, with one maxing out at 35% thermal efficiency, and others maxing out at 60% thermal efficiency, and a transmission efficiency of 95%, let's say the fuel-to-socket efficiency is about 1/3.
That lines up with general approximations of power plant efficiency.

That means to be equally efficient to a gas fired heating system, a replacement heating system needs and average efficiency of 3.
If it reaches that level, it is equally as polluting during operation.

Basically any heatpump water heater I can find with my limited access to US sources from across the pond would surpass this.

However, of course, that argument is only valid if
a) the production and transmission capacities are stocked up accordingly
and
b) incentives and rebates are offered for both the new device AND related wiring and service upgrades and/or smart grid solutions in ways that even low income people can take easy advantage off - so, up front rebates and/or cheap financing but NOT ONLY post purchase tax rebates.
 
Reply number four

Hi Lewis, must be a different rating system that’s for sure I do not understand how any system can be over 100% efficient.

It would have to be pulling energy out of the air and turning it into heat, lol.

This seems like the same problem with comparing energy efficiency ratings on US versus European refrigerators, etc. also, there are always different ways to rate things.

As the old saying goes, you can prove anything with statistics.

John
 
No, there isn't more energy coming out than coming in

There are 2 different heating values for all fuels.
One considers condensing, the other - older one - dosen't.

That's one of these engineering things that are just there because engineering is so traditionalist.

Marketing people then had the brilliant idea of mixing the old way of calculating efficiency with the new heating values, giving you the technically impossible thermal efficiency.

The condensing energy isn't "free".
It is just combustion energy - the water wasn't there before as water, then it is, so it keeps some of the energy that was released in its production.
Condensing that water vapour captured it and since evaporation is such an energy intensive thing, it is quite a bit.

Technically, that energy is part of the combustion energy.
The only reason it wasn't included in calculations up until the 90s or so was that there was no technical solution to using it.
 
No.

There is NO WAY to get a thermal efficiency of above 100%.
Period.

That would be fundamentally against the laws of the universe.

You can get effective efficiencies with ways like moving energy instead of releasing it.

You have gas coming in and air.

The mixture of both has a certain temperature going in.
It has a certain temperature going out. That temperature is higher than when going in.

The gas going in has a certain amount of energy going in that can be released.

When that energy is fully released, all of it is in the stream out.
The air stream out is warmer than going in.

So you have the same mass going in as going out.
But the mass going out is warmer than the masses going in.

Thus, not all heat is captured.
Aka thermal efficiency is below 100%.

What you are claiming is that the gasses going out of your chimney are colder than those going into your boiler just by sheer magic.

That is not the case.
 
I agree with your first point about thermal energy. So maybe you are right. But I understood that the condensation system works a bit like a heatpump. I can’t tell you what the outgoing temperature of the fumes is, but I do know that the exhaust pipe is plastic and the condensation pipe that drains the condensation to the sewer is cold.
 
In this neck of the woods, Only the larger cities have Natural Gas. The outskirts of where the pipelines are rely on Propane, like I do, although most are actually heated by oil. Because Electricity is prohibitively expensive here, Heat Pumps are a much economical way to use electricity and cut down on those of us in this state that rely on gas and oil. I have one estimate but waiting for additional rebates to be announced.
 
Maine is a tricky area to use a heat pump without constantly running off of the heating elements. Supposedly new technology allows the pump to run at lower temperatures below 40F with decent efficiency but I wonder how it'll hold up to basically 9 months of freezing weather.
 
People I know that have installed them say they heat and cool great and dont cost a fortune in electricity. The one I got a quote on supposedly will work down to -15. An article in the local paper said in this area, you are better off to use your central heating when temps go teens or below or it will kill your electric bill with the resistance electric heating.
 
Just need one clarification here.

 

When you say the furnace will work down to -15... is that Fahrenheit or Celsius? Because there's something like a 32% difference between those two energy measuring systems.

 

I would like to assume -15 means Celsius, because -15 Fahrenheit would be much much colder. (32F = 0C)...

 

That's all.

 
 
There are heatpumps that can operate down to -15F/-25C, yes.
5F/-15C is usually what heatpumps get rated to, though.

They are somewhat of a speciality, but they are out there.

Biggest downside is the efficiency at those low temps, it tends to drop down to 2 or 2.5 at those very low temps.
Biggest issue is the need for defrosting at those very low temps which greatly impacts efficiency - but still, going that low is rare in most places and if it gets there, it usually only a couple of days a year.
 
Well some of the units  I've seen reports on are rated to -15 F, being used in Minnesota.   At that point the hp is basically 1 for 1, about the same as resistance heating.

 

I've been doing a deep dive into heat pumps, really planning on one at some point, but plan on keeping my gas furnace for really cold weather..
 

Latest posts

Back
Top