Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#31

Post by acomjean »

jliptzin wrote: post #8
newyankee wrote: post #2

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)

[flagged]

It’s already a political issue. But at some point anything that’s done to help the environment ends up that way.

Turns out there was a gas lobby pushing gas as an energy source in the past.

This WNYC podcast was a decent look at the whole gas stove issues currently and historical look “cooking with gas” was an advertising slogan.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/flareup-ov...

From the transcript (clip)

[FOX NEWS] : They came for our light bulbs. They came for the showerhead pressure. The toilet water pressure. So they've already taken all these things. So I do believe that they are coming eventually for the gas stove as well. [END CLIP]

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#34

Post by dehrmann »

BoorishBears wrote: post #5

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 lon…

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#35

Post by photonbucket »

Thorrez wrote: post #22
noahtallen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#36

Post by thomas_ma »

Thorrez wrote: post #22
noahtallen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#37

Post by ramenmeal »

danans wrote: post #23
akg_67 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We had gas service after the 6.4 in northern california in December, but power was out.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#38

Post by akg_67 »

danans wrote: post #23
akg_67 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#39

Post by bcrosby95 »

> 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.

Post reply on HN