Bay Area plan to ban natural gas(sfchronicle.com)
sfchronicle.com
Bay Area plan to ban natural gas
https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/bay-area-gas-heater-debate-17769394.php
108 comments
Before someone chimes in with the obvious suggestions:
a) Water heater is a heat pump set to high efficiency.
b) Construction is 2016, so relatively new.
c) We have done a lot to insulate the home.
Net-net, this is an electricity cost issue; we are paying $0.42/KWH on average. This despite having some solar. This is not a profligate usage issue.
a) Water heater is a heat pump set to high efficiency.
b) Construction is 2016, so relatively new.
c) We have done a lot to insulate the home.
Net-net, this is an electricity cost issue; we are paying $0.42/KWH on average. This despite having some solar. This is not a profligate usage issue.
If you don't have gas service, how do you do space heating? Resistive electric? If so that could be very expensive. Also, insulation only deals with radiative heat losses and gains, not those causes by air leakage and conduction. High air leakage is quite possible for a 2016 house (especially in California where a lot of production built housing has been of poor quality).
> Net-net, this is an electricity cost issue; we are paying $0.42/KWH on average
The current time of use peak summer rate is $0.42/kWh. The winter off peak is $0.30/kWh. The only way you can be paying an average of $0.42 is if all your consumption for the year is between 4pm and 9pm during the summer, which is impossible.
> Net-net, this is an electricity cost issue; we are paying $0.42/KWH on average
The current time of use peak summer rate is $0.42/kWh. The winter off peak is $0.30/kWh. The only way you can be paying an average of $0.42 is if all your consumption for the year is between 4pm and 9pm during the summer, which is impossible.
We have two external units that serve to both heat and cool, one for each zone / floor. Bryant is the manufacturer, if memory serves.
Summer on-peak is $0.49 per KWH (1). Our average is $0.38, I had a math error.
Even with my error, the price of electricity in California is exorbitant and the grid is easily stretched to the limit => both will be exacerbated by increased demand from EVs and housing without gas lines. My math mistake doesn’t change the overall narrative.
1. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-ra...
Summer on-peak is $0.49 per KWH (1). Our average is $0.38, I had a math error.
Even with my error, the price of electricity in California is exorbitant and the grid is easily stretched to the limit => both will be exacerbated by increased demand from EVs and housing without gas lines. My math mistake doesn’t change the overall narrative.
1. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-ra...
> We have two external units that serve to both heat and cool, one for each zone / floor.
All else equal, a heat pump in the Bay Area should cost about the same or slightly less to operate as a natural gas furnace during the heating season. Natural gas is 3x cheaper than electricity per unit of energy, but heat pumps run at near-optimal efficiency in the local climate. Over the heating season mine achieves an average COP of 4.0 (4 units of heat for every 1 unit of electricity input).
> Bryant is the manufacturer, if memory serves.
It's a worthwhile exercise to look up the expected maximum efficiency of your unit to see if it is achieving that.
> Even with my error, the price of electricity in California is exorbitant and the grid is easily stretched to the limit => both will be exacerbated by increased demand from EVs and housing without gas lines.
Prices for electricity are absolutely high in California compared to other states. This is for many reasons, not the least of which is the cost of natural gas itself, which sets the spot price paid for all other sources. It's also because of the utility maintenance issues brought to light by the wildfires.
However, according to PGE's own data, the average household gas bill this January is $195/month. That's on top of what people are paying for electricity. 2 years ago, it was $114/month [1]. That is a 72% increase. In the same time period, average annual natural gas only rates went up by 27%. The reason for the discrepancy is that natural gas pricing is moving toward more closely matching seasonal price variations, so much higher price/therm in the winter and lower in the summer. For 2023, winter rates will be 40% higher than summer rates, whereas in 2021 that difference was only 10%.
Therefore today, you would probably be paying more to heat the same house with a natural gas furnace than with a heat pump. The vast majority of people who use natural gas for heating are discovering that reality right now.
Furthermore, there's not much of a future in which natural gas gets cheaper as an energy source during the heating season. That's just the reality of that energy source.
Meanwhile, peak electricity rates have increased 22% since 2021 (when peak rates were $0.40/kWh), but the seasonal variations in electricity demand are currently the opposite of natural gas (lowest in winter, highest in summer).
In the long term, we can expect winter electricity demand to rise as more heat pumps are deployed. However, even if we exclusively burned natural gas (which we won't) to generate the electricity to meet that demand, it makes far more sense to do so in a combined cycle plant that is 50-60% efficient and sending it to heat pumps getting 3-4 COP, yielding a 200%+ "efficiency", than to burn it in furnaces that achieve on average 80% efficiency.
1. https://www.pge.com/tariffs/Residential.pdf
All else equal, a heat pump in the Bay Area should cost about the same or slightly less to operate as a natural gas furnace during the heating season. Natural gas is 3x cheaper than electricity per unit of energy, but heat pumps run at near-optimal efficiency in the local climate. Over the heating season mine achieves an average COP of 4.0 (4 units of heat for every 1 unit of electricity input).
> Bryant is the manufacturer, if memory serves.
It's a worthwhile exercise to look up the expected maximum efficiency of your unit to see if it is achieving that.
> Even with my error, the price of electricity in California is exorbitant and the grid is easily stretched to the limit => both will be exacerbated by increased demand from EVs and housing without gas lines.
Prices for electricity are absolutely high in California compared to other states. This is for many reasons, not the least of which is the cost of natural gas itself, which sets the spot price paid for all other sources. It's also because of the utility maintenance issues brought to light by the wildfires.
However, according to PGE's own data, the average household gas bill this January is $195/month. That's on top of what people are paying for electricity. 2 years ago, it was $114/month [1]. That is a 72% increase. In the same time period, average annual natural gas only rates went up by 27%. The reason for the discrepancy is that natural gas pricing is moving toward more closely matching seasonal price variations, so much higher price/therm in the winter and lower in the summer. For 2023, winter rates will be 40% higher than summer rates, whereas in 2021 that difference was only 10%.
Therefore today, you would probably be paying more to heat the same house with a natural gas furnace than with a heat pump. The vast majority of people who use natural gas for heating are discovering that reality right now.
Furthermore, there's not much of a future in which natural gas gets cheaper as an energy source during the heating season. That's just the reality of that energy source.
Meanwhile, peak electricity rates have increased 22% since 2021 (when peak rates were $0.40/kWh), but the seasonal variations in electricity demand are currently the opposite of natural gas (lowest in winter, highest in summer).
In the long term, we can expect winter electricity demand to rise as more heat pumps are deployed. However, even if we exclusively burned natural gas (which we won't) to generate the electricity to meet that demand, it makes far more sense to do so in a combined cycle plant that is 50-60% efficient and sending it to heat pumps getting 3-4 COP, yielding a 200%+ "efficiency", than to burn it in furnaces that achieve on average 80% efficiency.
1. https://www.pge.com/tariffs/Residential.pdf
Missing some important data pieces: is it a giant house or small house? Is it heating/cooling the entire house including the spare bedroom(s) or zone ac/heating.
[deleted]
Re c), you may have done a lot, but clearly not enough. Good insulation needs balance.
Try a FLIR survey and a positive pressure test survey of the house. Those should help direct future insulation efforts.
Try a FLIR survey and a positive pressure test survey of the house. Those should help direct future insulation efforts.
[deleted]
> The air district estimated that the new rules for homes would cut nitrogen oxides enough to prevent 89 deaths per year in the Bay Area.
A unit that does ducted heating and AC is around $13k installed. And the water heater is probably around $4k installed if you include electrical (which you're gonna have to if you have gas). So you're looking at forcing about 2 million houses to spend $17k to save 89 people per year. That's $34 billion. 89 people a year.
The state would be bankrupt if they had these safety standards anywhere else, but when it's other people's money, who gives a fuck.
A unit that does ducted heating and AC is around $13k installed. And the water heater is probably around $4k installed if you include electrical (which you're gonna have to if you have gas). So you're looking at forcing about 2 million houses to spend $17k to save 89 people per year. That's $34 billion. 89 people a year.
The state would be bankrupt if they had these safety standards anywhere else, but when it's other people's money, who gives a fuck.
Asking because I’m genuinely curious (because I’ve seen list prices and I’m trying to decide how much cheaper it is to move a gas line than to just swap out a heat pump for current furnace/AC -
Is your estimate of $13k in the bay area? Are you including ducting in that estimate? Is that for a 2,3, or 4 ton system? Does that include electrical upgrades?
I’ve seen the list prices of 2 ton systems at $4k (if available). I have a modern AC/Furnace and ducting, but a very inconvenient gas line.
I actually just paid $2200 for a gas line to another location in the house for a tankless, so I’m not planning on switching to gas completely.
The water heater situation seemed more annoying to try to go electric. The tankless heaters are cheaper, but you’re looking at 30kW/120A for 9GPM service. I decided it was slightly cheaper to go gas (heater will now be outside, so heat pump would have been hard too)
Is your estimate of $13k in the bay area? Are you including ducting in that estimate? Is that for a 2,3, or 4 ton system? Does that include electrical upgrades?
I’ve seen the list prices of 2 ton systems at $4k (if available). I have a modern AC/Furnace and ducting, but a very inconvenient gas line.
I actually just paid $2200 for a gas line to another location in the house for a tankless, so I’m not planning on switching to gas completely.
The water heater situation seemed more annoying to try to go electric. The tankless heaters are cheaper, but you’re looking at 30kW/120A for 9GPM service. I decided it was slightly cheaper to go gas (heater will now be outside, so heat pump would have been hard too)
Did you go inline gas (tankless) water heater? I am trying to figure out if it makes sense to switch to inline from tank water heater?
Yes, I am going to install a Rinnai RSC199eN. Haven’t quite got there yet as I am doing a repipe myself and will relocate washer/dryer too a bit later (basically will reclaim the former mechanical room, which is almost 8x8)
For me, I really needed the inline tankless installed outdoors - so it will be worth it (lose a messy laundry room, gain a bedroom). I figured upgrading to 400A service panel would take longer and be more annoying than doing gas.
For me, I really needed the inline tankless installed outdoors - so it will be worth it (lose a messy laundry room, gain a bedroom). I figured upgrading to 400A service panel would take longer and be more annoying than doing gas.
Your math relies on a fundamental misunderstanding.
Assuming the Bay Area won't construct a significant number of new homes we only need to look at existing homes. The rule only covers new installations, which will be mostly people replacing broken systems and a few upgrades. How much more will it cost to replace your furnace when it has to be electric compared to when you could replace with gas?
That turns out to be the wrong question too, though. Per Angie's list the averages heat pump install costs $1,514 less than the averages gas furnace install [1]. Gas vs electric boilers costs around the same, so let's say the savings from the heat pump install and the loss from needing to upgrade your electrical system even out and the unit replacements cost about the same.
But you lose money on the routine operating costs. A rough estimate [2] based on Bay Area Dec 2022 energy prices [3] estimates that a 60,000 btu gas furnace would cost $579 less annually to operate than an analogous 5 ton heat pump with a good HSPF rating (10).
Is this a crazy amount to spend every year per household on saving that many people?
(Interestingly the the Bay Area spends around the same on cops per household[4], but there's no good data on how many lives that saves.)
Edit: Even if you disagree that the replacement costs about the same, remember to divide the delta by the 10-15 year lifespan of the unit so that your cost and lives saved are in the same unit.
[1] https://www.angi.com/articles/how-much-does-heat-pump-cost.h... [2] https://www.angi.com/articles/how-much-does-it-cost-install-... [2] https://www.pickhvac.com/hvac/furnace-vs-heat-pump-cost/ [3] https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/averageenergyp... [4] SF + San Jose + Oakland police, not counting state troopers, was 1.079B in 2021 per https://cities.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/#!/year/2021/operatin...
Assuming the Bay Area won't construct a significant number of new homes we only need to look at existing homes. The rule only covers new installations, which will be mostly people replacing broken systems and a few upgrades. How much more will it cost to replace your furnace when it has to be electric compared to when you could replace with gas?
That turns out to be the wrong question too, though. Per Angie's list the averages heat pump install costs $1,514 less than the averages gas furnace install [1]. Gas vs electric boilers costs around the same, so let's say the savings from the heat pump install and the loss from needing to upgrade your electrical system even out and the unit replacements cost about the same.
But you lose money on the routine operating costs. A rough estimate [2] based on Bay Area Dec 2022 energy prices [3] estimates that a 60,000 btu gas furnace would cost $579 less annually to operate than an analogous 5 ton heat pump with a good HSPF rating (10).
Is this a crazy amount to spend every year per household on saving that many people?
(Interestingly the the Bay Area spends around the same on cops per household[4], but there's no good data on how many lives that saves.)
Edit: Even if you disagree that the replacement costs about the same, remember to divide the delta by the 10-15 year lifespan of the unit so that your cost and lives saved are in the same unit.
[1] https://www.angi.com/articles/how-much-does-heat-pump-cost.h... [2] https://www.angi.com/articles/how-much-does-it-cost-install-... [2] https://www.pickhvac.com/hvac/furnace-vs-heat-pump-cost/ [3] https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/averageenergyp... [4] SF + San Jose + Oakland police, not counting state troopers, was 1.079B in 2021 per https://cities.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/#!/year/2021/operatin...
It saves 89 people from NOx-related deaths. It is also a necessary step to reach carbon neutrality, which will save more lives.
Do you think that $34 billion could save, say, more than 89 people if spent on a more effective plan?
Too often people forget to make this type of calculation. I get it - it sucks to have to make that type of choice! But in a world with limited resources - of which the cost is just an indirect indication of - we have to.
We need to better understand the downsides and alternatives of proposed, not just the upsides. We need to not call people who point them out "killers who hate the environment" and instead listen and work together toward the best solution possible, not the one that sounds the best without understand the details.
We need to better understand the downsides and alternatives of proposed, not just the upsides. We need to not call people who point them out "killers who hate the environment" and instead listen and work together toward the best solution possible, not the one that sounds the best without understand the details.
Sure, you could spend the money to build renewables and electrify some developing nation. But it would be a hard political sale to ask two million Californians to spend a couple thousand dollars to help people in Africa or wherever.
Banning natural gas in new construction seems reasonable and also the biggest win since you don’t have to run pipes to the building.
But existing homes? They definitely need to first figure out the objections in the article:
* supply chain capacity
* cost - we would need subsidies for less affluent people
* time to having heat or hot water again after my furnace / water heater breaks and I’m forced into an emergency switch to electric
But existing homes? They definitely need to first figure out the objections in the article:
* supply chain capacity
* cost - we would need subsidies for less affluent people
* time to having heat or hot water again after my furnace / water heater breaks and I’m forced into an emergency switch to electric
My house is already maxed out on electric capacity because I have an electric car. I've investigated increasing the current coming into the house, but changes in code mean that making that upgrade would cost $20K. So if my hot water breaks, it will cost me $20K+ to fix it. That's not reasonable.
I'm not remotely in favor of this kind of forced conversion described in the article, but, if you actually want to install electric appliances (stove/heater) you can actually do so relatively cheaply without a service upgrade.
Basically need to consider that while all of your combined appliances may use far more than your service can supply, they will rarely to never need to all run at the same time. You can interlock appliances and give them some priority so that, for example, when your electric range is on your other power hungry appliances can not be.
You wouldn't actually notice or care about this in reality since in a 24h period everything in your home will receive more than ample power just spread out over a longer period of time.
The only downside is that not many electricians are capable or willing to install or service a system like this. I'm sure that pool will grow and I'm quite sure that in the future this kind of demand-side management is going to be effectively mandated and I don't see that as a good thing.
Basically need to consider that while all of your combined appliances may use far more than your service can supply, they will rarely to never need to all run at the same time. You can interlock appliances and give them some priority so that, for example, when your electric range is on your other power hungry appliances can not be.
You wouldn't actually notice or care about this in reality since in a 24h period everything in your home will receive more than ample power just spread out over a longer period of time.
The only downside is that not many electricians are capable or willing to install or service a system like this. I'm sure that pool will grow and I'm quite sure that in the future this kind of demand-side management is going to be effectively mandated and I don't see that as a good thing.
I've never heard of this. Is there more information about such a system online?
Edit: I went ahead and asked the AI
What is this system called? Who are purveyors of this kind of system?
> The system being referred to is called a "load management system" or "load shedding system." It involves interlocking appliances and prioritizing their usage to manage electricity demand and prevent overloading of the electrical service. Some electric utility companies and home automation companies offer load management systems, and electricians may also be able to install and service these systems.
How does it work? How do the appliances communicate?
> A load management system works by using a controller device that is installed in the home's electrical panel. This controller communicates wirelessly or via wired connections with the various appliances in the home. The controller is programmed to manage the electrical load by monitoring the power usage of each appliance and turning them on or off in a prioritized sequence when there is a risk of overloading the electrical service.
> For example, the load management system may be programmed to turn off power to non-essential appliances when the air conditioner is turned on, or to delay the start of the dishwasher until the washing machine has finished its cycle. The communication between the controller and the appliances is typically done using a protocol called Zigbee or Z-Wave, which allows for wireless communication over short distances.
Edit: I went ahead and asked the AI
What is this system called? Who are purveyors of this kind of system?
> The system being referred to is called a "load management system" or "load shedding system." It involves interlocking appliances and prioritizing their usage to manage electricity demand and prevent overloading of the electrical service. Some electric utility companies and home automation companies offer load management systems, and electricians may also be able to install and service these systems.
How does it work? How do the appliances communicate?
> A load management system works by using a controller device that is installed in the home's electrical panel. This controller communicates wirelessly or via wired connections with the various appliances in the home. The controller is programmed to manage the electrical load by monitoring the power usage of each appliance and turning them on or off in a prioritized sequence when there is a risk of overloading the electrical service.
> For example, the load management system may be programmed to turn off power to non-essential appliances when the air conditioner is turned on, or to delay the start of the dishwasher until the washing machine has finished its cycle. The communication between the controller and the appliances is typically done using a protocol called Zigbee or Z-Wave, which allows for wireless communication over short distances.
Many jurisdictions in CA have made what you're describing illegal. E.g. in Berkeley, where I live, I'd need enough service for everything to run at the same time to make it past the permitting and inspections folks.
Even with a load shedding system? That's absurd, there is absolutely no local (your house) technical reason why this is unsafe and no grid-level reason why it's a bad idea and no generation-level reason why it's a bad idea.
By doing this you shift loads off peak and flatten the demand curve for power, this is an absolute win for transmission/grid capacity (they are most efficient at 100% utilization) and a huge win on generation capacity!
That is absolutely insane if you're correct, but, not unexpected from CA.
By doing this you shift loads off peak and flatten the demand curve for power, this is an absolute win for transmission/grid capacity (they are most efficient at 100% utilization) and a huge win on generation capacity!
That is absolutely insane if you're correct, but, not unexpected from CA.
Same. And it would most likely take months to upgrade the electric service given PG&E's incredibly slow timetables + permitting, because the electric cables are undergrounded on my street and they'd need to dig trenches. Enforcing electric water heaters and furnaces for new construction makes sense, but forcing everyone to retrofit in six years or else face massive costs + potentially months without heat or hot water is insane. And what would you do even if your furnace broke within the six-year timeframe? Buy an entirely new gas furnace that will be illegal to repair within a few years? No, you'd still effectively be forced into the months-long, double-digit thousands of dollars expense to upgrade electrical service with the monopoly that controls electric service in CA.
It'd be quite a talking point if this forced you to get an ICE car again
Don't forget the government wants to drain your car battery each night to deal with all the new load this is going to generate. :)
Given that heat pumps and other technologies have proven themselves quite well at this point it is not a bad idea for SF to lead the country on this one and shows that one can electrify most stuff (if not all stuff)
Installing anything new in the bay is cost prohibitive. Qualified labour shortage as well, an example is when contractors that installed solar panels damaged roof pretty badly, like making see through holes and sloppy job around mounting brackets, just painful to watch. Also, last 2 years we had rolling outages, so I am actually not sure if the grid will fare well with the increased load. Insulation can greatly increase heating efficiency, and should be the first step when installing a heat pump anyway.
Years ago when I signed up for pge i chose community aggregates renewable energy source instead of buying from pge. Couple years ago it was more expensive to buy renewable + delivery charges then just buying from pge, even though pge had at least half of it coming from gas and coal. Yet renewable should be much cheaper. So i suspect right now cost of heat pump heating isn’t gonna be cheaper than gas, given upfront cost. Utilities can’t achieve renewable efficiency and maintain grid, yet its ok to push it on everyone else.
Heat pump however makes total sense if you have solar panel and battery. But again, upfront cost.
Years ago when I signed up for pge i chose community aggregates renewable energy source instead of buying from pge. Couple years ago it was more expensive to buy renewable + delivery charges then just buying from pge, even though pge had at least half of it coming from gas and coal. Yet renewable should be much cheaper. So i suspect right now cost of heat pump heating isn’t gonna be cheaper than gas, given upfront cost. Utilities can’t achieve renewable efficiency and maintain grid, yet its ok to push it on everyone else.
Heat pump however makes total sense if you have solar panel and battery. But again, upfront cost.
I hate my heat pump. Load as hell, makes the basement freezing in the winter, 50 gallon is really 45 gallon, time to reheat sucks, doesn't pair well with recirculating pumps, electric usage is more expensive than gas. Basically, get a size up compared to whatever you used for gas and you'll be good.
This is the opposite of my existence. I love my rheem heat pump water heater. Costs me less than old gas water heater. I heat to 140 and use a mixing valve to have safe temp at 120. I’ve never run out of hot water.
I think experience varies greatly by region. I wonder what regions you and op are.
I can’t think of a way to electrify launching a payload into orbit, but who knows what the future might think up.
You make fuel from atmospheric carbon dioxide, water, and electricity. Like you would on Mars.
Yep, until the next earthquake or forest fire or another natural disaster happens and your power goes out. Then you are out of luck to cook, and/or warm yourself. Relying on one type of energy source is a single point of failure.
Good luck getting natural gas service after an earthquake severe enough to knock out power. Natural gas lines are far more at risk of breaking during such an event, and the gas utility will usually shut off gas supply until they are sure there aren't major leaks. After an earthquake, you are supposed to shut off your own supply at your meter with a gas wrench.
I live in an earthquake prone place and gas canisters, that is what we have with a single burner portable stove for emergency. We had a 6.7 earthquake 4 years ago, power and water went out for 3 days. Our emergency kit that included bottled water and portable stove with gas canister what helped us. I can't imagine right now experiencing such an event when temperatures are -13C.
Does California want to ban camping stoves?
We had gas service after the 6.4 in northern california in December, but power was out.
They don't call these things "Earthquake Survival Tool" for no reason:
https://www.amazon.com/Ready-America-3333-Earthquake-Emergen...
https://www.amazon.com/Ready-America-3333-Earthquake-Emergen...
[deleted]
as long as the insanity doesn't come to my city, I fully agree with you.
What was that "n-gate" phrase "a city at war with it's citizens"?
What was that "n-gate" phrase "a city at war with it's citizens"?
what happened to n-gate by the way??
I wish i knew. I miss their take on the forum.
jliptzin(3)
NIST study suggests that gas is the most eco-friendly home energy option.
Source: https://www.earth.com/news/gas-electric-eco-friendly-home/
Source: https://www.earth.com/news/gas-electric-eco-friendly-home/
From your source: „According to Kneifel, however, electric may become the better bargain and the more environmentally responsible option in the near future.“
Force everyone to single source of energy. Control that source of energy and weaponize it to control the masses.
You mean like fossil fuels? Being off-grid has never been easier since we made great progress on electrifying everything.
Among other things the utilities proposed for NEM 3.0 that it be made unlawful to generate electricity off grid and not sell it to the utility at wholesale rates (which they would then sell back to you at retail rates).
I believe that proposal is dead this time but they're not going to stop trying. Several long term trends are challenging the viability of a public electrical grid, among them the low cost of solar.
I believe that proposal is dead this time but they're not going to stop trying. Several long term trends are challenging the viability of a public electrical grid, among them the low cost of solar.
NEM 3.0 approval process seemed corrupt. Basically PGE makes sure they have not competition.
> The rules would not apply to gas stoves.
I assumed furnaces and water heaters are better ventilated, so this surprised me. Yes, those two emit more nitrogen oxides, but we should be more worried about them indoors than out.
I assumed furnaces and water heaters are better ventilated, so this surprised me. Yes, those two emit more nitrogen oxides, but we should be more worried about them indoors than out.
They are. But people get much more defensive about their gas stoves, so here we are.
Nope, the media makes seem like people are backwards and get uppity up the gas stove. Gas stove is the cheapest and easier to replace. Induction stove are actually quite nice and typically don’t require much of a retrofit.
Gas cooking has an extremely low duty cycle, its an emissions rounding error.
Cooking is a major source of indoor air pollution but not due to using gas but due to the polution from cooking itself.
Cooking is a major source of indoor air pollution but not due to using gas but due to the polution from cooking itself.
Once furnace and water heaters are electric I really don’t see how maintaining gas infrastructure stays economic for PG&E. I guess they can keep raising minimum monthly charges so you’ll end up paying even if you use no gas.
Run time? Like, if it’s half as bad but runs 10x as much…
> The rules would essentially require all new residential construction to have electric water heaters by 2027 and heat pumps instead of furnaces by 2029.
Not to be overly snide, but does the Bay Area even do any “new residential construction”?
Not to be overly snide, but does the Bay Area even do any “new residential construction”?
actually, this probably isn't what you had in mind, but there are quite a few single story houses that are torn down and replaced with McMansions.
Knock down and rebuild.
Wait I've been assured that is disinformation to suggest that democrats were trying to ban gas stoves.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/climate/gas-stoves-biden-...
If national democrats ever said to california democrats "no that is too crazy" there might be an argument here but instead what they say is "shh don't talk about that now we'll do it later"
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/climate/gas-stoves-biden-...
If national democrats ever said to california democrats "no that is too crazy" there might be an argument here but instead what they say is "shh don't talk about that now we'll do it later"
Hope their electricity isn't being generated with natural gas
This code would be about home appliances. But it turns out that massive generators are pretty efficient since they can operate at a huge scale. So even if the electricity replacing the gas stove was generated with gas, it'd still be better for the environment (and human health)
How does the efficiency of
* natural gas -> fire -> heat -> electricity in massive generator -> home -> induction stove -> pan
compare to
* natural gas -> fire -> heat -> pan
? And resistive is worse than induction.
* natural gas -> fire -> heat -> electricity in massive generator -> home -> induction stove -> pan
compare to
* natural gas -> fire -> heat -> pan
? And resistive is worse than induction.
Energy efficiency is going to be better with induction in that scenario since it only heats the food, not the pan, stovetop, etc. On top of that, the pollution is dramatically reduced. A modern natural gas turbine at a power plant is dramatically cleaner burning than an open flame in a kitchen stove.
> On top of that, the pollution is dramatically reduced. A modern natural gas turbine at a power plant is dramatically cleaner burning than an open flame in a kitchen stove.
Not to mention the pollution from the power plant is not going directly into your home (or face).
This is not a small or hypothetical impact. From the article:
> The air district estimated that the new rules for homes would cut nitrogen oxides enough to prevent 89 deaths per year in the Bay Area.
Not to mention the pollution from the power plant is not going directly into your home (or face).
This is not a small or hypothetical impact. From the article:
> The air district estimated that the new rules for homes would cut nitrogen oxides enough to prevent 89 deaths per year in the Bay Area.
You also need to compare:
The part that isn't obvious is that the fantastical-sounding "5x" isn't really about energy efficiency but rather about changing the problem from "generating heat" to "moving heat from one place to another".
* natural gas -> home furnace -> fire -> warm air
vs
* natural gas -> fire -> heat -> electricity in massive generator -> home -> heat pump -> warm air
The part that isn't obvious is that the fantastical-sounding "5x" isn't really about energy efficiency but rather about changing the problem from "generating heat" to "moving heat from one place to another".
I don't know if it's significant, but there is also energy to physically move the gas to your location, for the second scenario
[deleted]
Well, if you’re being fair you need to include how the gas GETS to the home.
A lot of the heat of the flame doesn't end up in the pan.
The primary use of natural gas is heating and in moderate climates burning natural gas to heat your house is under half as efficient as burning natural gas at a power plant, moving the electricity to your house, and using a heat-pump to move the outdoors heat inside.
Making houses energy-agnostic seems like a big win if the cost is low and it can be, especially on new constructions. Plus if you assume that natural gas is bad then it should be obvious that thousands of houses directly depending on it is much worse than indirectly depending on it via the local plant. The local plant centralizes safety and pollution measures (e.g. no domestic gas leaks) and it allows a much quicker swapping of energy sources by the city when the time comes.
Making houses energy-agnostic seems like a big win if the cost is low and it can be, especially on new constructions. Plus if you assume that natural gas is bad then it should be obvious that thousands of houses directly depending on it is much worse than indirectly depending on it via the local plant. The local plant centralizes safety and pollution measures (e.g. no domestic gas leaks) and it allows a much quicker swapping of energy sources by the city when the time comes.
> The rules would essentially require all new residential construction to have electric water heaters by 2027 and heat pumps instead of furnaces by 2029.
By the time this is fully in effect for a significant number of people (i.e., basically the 2030s), yeah, the electricity will be pretty green. The target is 90% renewable electricity by 2035, and the mix was already around 34% renewable in 2021 statewide.
It seems fairly prudent to require new construction to use the super-green electricity instead of building infrastructure to burn more dinosaur juice.
By the time this is fully in effect for a significant number of people (i.e., basically the 2030s), yeah, the electricity will be pretty green. The target is 90% renewable electricity by 2035, and the mix was already around 34% renewable in 2021 statewide.
It seems fairly prudent to require new construction to use the super-green electricity instead of building infrastructure to burn more dinosaur juice.
This is about residential usages, not power generation, and after the San Bruno explosion killed eight people, I can see where they're coming from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion
Why are people so attached to gas stoves when we have induction anyways?
I love to cook and have a gas stove, but I bought my parents an induction unit a while back.
Sure it can't provide an open flame, but the ludicrous speed at which it heats things up vastly outweighs that drawback.
And not having to worry about ventilation nearly as much as just a bonus. My range hood needs to be on full tilt when I cook over long periods of time or the air gets "stuffy"
I love to cook and have a gas stove, but I bought my parents an induction unit a while back.
Sure it can't provide an open flame, but the ludicrous speed at which it heats things up vastly outweighs that drawback.
And not having to worry about ventilation nearly as much as just a bonus. My range hood needs to be on full tilt when I cook over long periods of time or the air gets "stuffy"
Because cooking with gas provides more, and better, temperature control than even very expensive induction setups. If you stir fry, there is no comparison.
Also, low temp induction sucks. Even good units do low-frequency PWM to approximate low heat settings that come naturally with gas.
Induction is a big step forward compared to the older, resistive-style electric elements, and there's a lot to like about it. But what it isn't, is a good replacement for gas, at least as it currently stands.
Also, low temp induction sucks. Even good units do low-frequency PWM to approximate low heat settings that come naturally with gas.
Induction is a big step forward compared to the older, resistive-style electric elements, and there's a lot to like about it. But what it isn't, is a good replacement for gas, at least as it currently stands.
Haven’t tried stir frying yet (and I’ve read claims that any home and even restaurant wok burner can’t match the flavour from the very high-power outdoor gas burners used on the streets of Asia) but low temp induction works just fine, thanks. My $50 Ikea hotplate does a better job at very low heat than our gas burners, on-off cycling and all.
Indeed, if you’re keen, you can buy specialist induction hotplates with connected thermometer probes that can give you way more precise control than gas ever could. Pricey but if you’re into fancy stuff like tempering chocolate they are excellent.
Indeed, if you’re keen, you can buy specialist induction hotplates with connected thermometer probes that can give you way more precise control than gas ever could. Pricey but if you’re into fancy stuff like tempering chocolate they are excellent.
Wok cooking at home doesn't require anything crazy, just a wok ring/burner setup, like millions of folks already have.
A rough BTU breakdown for familiar comparison is ~7-10k BTU max for an average American home-cooking gas cooktop, ~15-20k BTU for an average Chinese one. Restaurants are in the 100k+ category because of volume as much as anything.
Speaking from personal preference, A ~50-75k BTU burner/ring setup is just fine; I don't need to cook larger volumes. When doing single-serving-sized batches, the indoor 20k is ok, too.
Now, can I cook in general using electric? Of course. Can I cook and achieve the flavors and composition I want with it? Not entirely, and yes, that matters to me. Outside of BTU discussions, I toast a lot of veggies over an open flame to get that nice, flavorful char. You can also dry heat them on a comal or the like, but it isn't the same.
[edit] FWIW, I would still love to try one of the commercial, 3-phase induction woks some day.
A rough BTU breakdown for familiar comparison is ~7-10k BTU max for an average American home-cooking gas cooktop, ~15-20k BTU for an average Chinese one. Restaurants are in the 100k+ category because of volume as much as anything.
Speaking from personal preference, A ~50-75k BTU burner/ring setup is just fine; I don't need to cook larger volumes. When doing single-serving-sized batches, the indoor 20k is ok, too.
Now, can I cook in general using electric? Of course. Can I cook and achieve the flavors and composition I want with it? Not entirely, and yes, that matters to me. Outside of BTU discussions, I toast a lot of veggies over an open flame to get that nice, flavorful char. You can also dry heat them on a comal or the like, but it isn't the same.
[edit] FWIW, I would still love to try one of the commercial, 3-phase induction woks some day.
yeah... if induction is good enough for the French Laundry to do pastry work with, you might just be overblowing the difference.
The average gas range doesn't have open burners so even with a wok you're not going to touch "authentic" stir fry. So even half decent cookware should have enough thermal mass to make near equivalent dishes on induction or gas.
At the end of the day induction isn't a 1:1 replacement for gas, but the places where induction excels are factors you appreciate every single day. Gas excels in corners cases which, again coming someone who's exclusively had gas ranges for the last decade, aren't as strong as induction's strengths.
The average gas range doesn't have open burners so even with a wok you're not going to touch "authentic" stir fry. So even half decent cookware should have enough thermal mass to make near equivalent dishes on induction or gas.
At the end of the day induction isn't a 1:1 replacement for gas, but the places where induction excels are factors you appreciate every single day. Gas excels in corners cases which, again coming someone who's exclusively had gas ranges for the last decade, aren't as strong as induction's strengths.
> Why are people so attached to gas stoves when we have induction anyways?
People are attached to gas stoves because the usual alternative you see in rented units is shitty electric stoves bought at the lowest cost, not induction.
People are attached to gas stoves because the usual alternative you see in rented units is shitty electric stoves bought at the lowest cost, not induction.
I live in SF and rent.
Induction cooktops aren't as inherently expensive as the price implies: here in the US we don't really use them, so there's just little demand.
When I went to buy my parents that induction stove, the bottom of the ranges offered were induction versions of the top non-induction stoves because they need the highest possible margins to justify the tiny market.
Just an induction cooktop starts in the $700 range, when they start for less than half that in the UK. This could easily be the start of normalizing induction in the US, and that's not a bad thing.
Induction cooktops aren't as inherently expensive as the price implies: here in the US we don't really use them, so there's just little demand.
When I went to buy my parents that induction stove, the bottom of the ranges offered were induction versions of the top non-induction stoves because they need the highest possible margins to justify the tiny market.
Just an induction cooktop starts in the $700 range, when they start for less than half that in the UK. This could easily be the start of normalizing induction in the US, and that's not a bad thing.
As an SF apartment dweller, this is my main concern.
My apartment has a shitty stove, but you know what? At least it's gas.
If it gets replaced, I am 110% sure it will not be with a nice induction stove. It will be with the cheapest electric stove that's available.
My apartment has a shitty stove, but you know what? At least it's gas.
If it gets replaced, I am 110% sure it will not be with a nice induction stove. It will be with the cheapest electric stove that's available.
There might be a code cycle lag, but they will mandate induction as well I am sure, because it is more energy efficient than older style electric stoves.
https://www.energystar.gov/about/2021_residential_induction_...
https://www.energystar.gov/about/2021_residential_induction_...
The article mentions that gas stoves are not affected by the ban
Personally, I like cooking over gas because it gives me a level of nostalgia for cooking over open flame - when we were kids we had a wood combustion stove, and spent a lot of time camping in the bush cooking over open fires.
The only singular objective benefit to gas vs induction is the ability to use any old cookware over an open flame instead of needing an induction pot or pan. But that's about it, other than the emotional attachment which I feel and I'm sure others feel. In this day and age however, that's probably not good enough of a reason to stick with combustion cooking.
The only singular objective benefit to gas vs induction is the ability to use any old cookware over an open flame instead of needing an induction pot or pan. But that's about it, other than the emotional attachment which I feel and I'm sure others feel. In this day and age however, that's probably not good enough of a reason to stick with combustion cooking.
I have an old gas stove that doesn't require electric. The burner knobs basically connect to valves. There's so little to go wrong, it's incredibly reliable. Induction has chips and stuff.
Not exactly what the Reddit'ers say:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cooking/comments/10q188u/anyone_swi...
So now it's not just "you need an expensive induction unit" but "you shouldn't get the touch-control units that everyone is selling"?
And before anyone says "the proposal doesn't cover stoves" that's obviously going to be the other shoe to drop.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cooking/comments/10q188u/anyone_swi...
So now it's not just "you need an expensive induction unit" but "you shouldn't get the touch-control units that everyone is selling"?
And before anyone says "the proposal doesn't cover stoves" that's obviously going to be the other shoe to drop.
Touch capacitive buttons aren't an induction thing: they're a new appliances thing. My gas stove uses touch buttons for the oven. Plenty of crappy resistive electric cooktops use touch controls.
In fact the same people making those cheap units you're complaining about do the same thing for gas: https://cindychenzs.en.ec21.com/Touch_Button_Gas_Stove--7335...
Of course, it's also kind of silly to act like that's the focus when of the first 20 or so replies, 16 of them are people confirming they enjoyed the switch...
In fact the same people making those cheap units you're complaining about do the same thing for gas: https://cindychenzs.en.ec21.com/Touch_Button_Gas_Stove--7335...
Of course, it's also kind of silly to act like that's the focus when of the first 20 or so replies, 16 of them are people confirming they enjoyed the switch...
Your comment is off-topic. This proposal would not apply to gas stoves, only furnaces and hot water heaters.
The only real advantage is for woks, for that you need a special induction burner and wok.
Electric is old and the Bay Area is shitty about approving building permits
when the power went out for 5 days two weeks ago, I could run the entire house on a $1200 generator. The gas furnace (600 watts), gas stove, gas dryer, and gas water heater used very little electricity. At some point Ill connect the generator to the natural gas line too.
My friend with a brand new heat pump could not run the heatpump off his generator (6kw).
I do like induction and use an induction hotplate for a few things and actually wouldnt mind having an induction stove with a small propane stove for when the power goes out.
My friend with a brand new heat pump could not run the heatpump off his generator (6kw).
I do like induction and use an induction hotplate for a few things and actually wouldnt mind having an induction stove with a small propane stove for when the power goes out.
I'm surprised your gas furnace uses that much power, is that forced hot air or baseboard?
My hot water heater circulation pumps use around 200W for both, and the air circulators for my central air only use 300W (the actual cooling of course uses way more).
My hot water heater circulation pumps use around 200W for both, and the air circulators for my central air only use 300W (the actual cooling of course uses way more).
1) PG&E electricity costs are among the highest in the country per KWH. They have received approvals to increase these astronomical costs by 10% in the near future. Gas is cheaper, by a lot.
2) Any time we have winds or hot weather or cold weather, the grid is under pressure and we are asked to curb our electricity usage.
3) In the winter and summer, our monthly bill for a home of 2 with the thermostats set to 63 in the winter and 79 in the summer is $300+.
Someone else’s mileage and bills might be different. But 62 is cold in the winter. 79 is hot in the summer. Sometimes unbearably so.
If the Bay Area wants to go this route, PG&E needs to be reined in, SIGNIFICANTLY. Bills are borderline unaffordable right now; the future isn’t any cheaper.