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

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#71

Post by prpl »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #39

> 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…

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)

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#72

Post by nullc »

adrianN wrote: post #40
sbmyft wrote: post #32

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#73

Post by reissbaker »

adrianN wrote: post #52
bcrosby95 wrote: post #39

> 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.

Do you think that $34 billion could save, say, more than 89 people if spent on a more effective plan?

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#74

Post by rendall »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #55
aag wrote: 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 interloc…

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#75

Post by AlbertCory »

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…

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#76

Post by conk »

dehrmann wrote: post #42

> 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.

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#77

Post by YeBanKo »

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)

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#78

Post by YeBanKo »

conk wrote: post #64
bluSCALE4 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#79

Post by danans »

jhatax wrote: post #53
jhatax wrote: 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.

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.

Re: Bay Area plan to ban natural gas

#80

Post by YeBanKo »

prpl wrote: post #71
bcrosby95 wrote: post #39

> 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…

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).…

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?
Post reply on HN