Live data from Hacker News

Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

sfchronicle.com

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#51

> 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.

Run time? Like, if it’s half as bad but runs 10x as much…

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#52

> 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 yea…

It saves 89 people from NOx-related deaths. It is also a necessary step to reach carbon neutrality, which will save more lives.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#53
post #49

As a Bay Area resident with no gas connection, here are points to ponder: 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 s…

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#54

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)

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#55
post #20

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#56
post #22

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.

Well, if you’re being fair you need to include how the gas GETS to the home.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#57
post #53
post #49

As a Bay Area resident with no gas connection, here are points to ponder: 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 s…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#58

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…

Your comment is off-topic. This proposal would not apply to gas stoves, only furnaces and hot water heaters.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

The article mentions that gas stoves are not affected by the ban

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#60
post #20

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.

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.
Post reply on HN