Why Eco-Warriors’ Bid to Ban Natural Gas Appliances Is Wrongheaded

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

After using natural gas for cooking for almost 20 years in SE Asia, it's still weird for me to be using electricity to cook back here in the U.S.  I much prefer natural gas for cooking.  I am very familiar with twisting the natural gas flow control knob on flame cookers, to get the instantly precise heat needed for cooking.  Electric cooking is not nearly as controllable.

 

Why Eco-Warriors’ Bid to Ban Natural Gas Appliances Is Wrongheaded

KEY TAKEAWAYS

- Several cities are studying proposals to restrict the use of natural gas in commercial and residential buildings as a way to combat climate change. 

- Economically and environmentally, the push to ban natural gas from homes and commercial buildings is extremely misguided.

- People like gas appliances because they’re reliable, affordable, and clean. Governments shouldn’t take that choice away.

 

Could the 80-year-old phrase “Now we’re cooking with gas” soon become a relic of the past? 

Several cities are studying proposals to restrict the use of natural gas in commercial and residential buildings as a way to combat climate change. 

In the latest push to ban natural gas appliances in homes, a Sierra Club-commissioned report warns of the adverse public health effects from using natural gas stoves, furnaces and water heaters.  

Both economically and environmentally, the push to ban natural gas from homes and commercial buildings is extremely misguided.

For Californians and the rest of the 177 million Americans who use natural gas to heat their homes and cook their food, the costs would be substantial and harm families in a multitude of ways.

For one thing, using natural gas appliances saves families money on their energy bills.  Households that use natural gas for heating, cooking, and drying clothes save nearly $900 per year compared with families using electric appliances. 

Furthermore, mandated restrictions on gas appliances would restrict consumer choice. 

Homeowners and chefs prefer gas ranges because they work quickly and cook more evenly, not to mention that gas ranges still function during power outages. They’re also easier to maintain.  ...

 

In many instances, gas appliances are actually the greener option. As Consumer Affairs reported last year, “Gas takes the trophy as the more eco-friendly option for any appliance. Gas dryers in particular use 30 percent less energy than electric ones, which will reduce your carbon footprint.” 

In fact, the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions actually recommendsreplacing certain electric appliances with natural gas models.

So, why all the backlash? Because despite the economic, environmental, and geopolitical benefits that natural gas delivers, it is still a fossil fuel. 

And despite the fact that environmental activists took money from the natural gas companies to attack coal, it’s now natural gas that has the green target on its back. And they’re shooting at an awfully large target. The U.S. has been the world’s largest natural gas producer for more than a decade.

With an abundance of reserves, natural gas producers can supply Americans with affordable, dependable power well into the future.  ...

 

... Electrification would be extremely costly and cumbersome for families and businesses. It would restrict the ability of consumers to purchase the appliances they want and would be fraught with unintended consequences. 

It’s no surprise these proposals are incredibly unpopular, even in a state like California. People like gas appliances because they’re reliable, affordable, and clean. Governments shouldn’t take that choice away.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

After using natural gas for cooking for almost 20 years in SE Asia, it's still weird for me to be using electricity to cook back here in the U.S.  I much prefer natural gas for cooking.  I am very familiar with twisting the natural gas flow control knob on flame cookers, to get the instantly precise heat needed for cooking.  Electric cooking is not nearly as controllable.

 

Why Eco-Warriors’ Bid to Ban Natural Gas Appliances Is Wrongheaded

KEY TAKEAWAYS

- Several cities are studying proposals to restrict the use of natural gas in commercial and residential buildings as a way to combat climate change. 

- Economically and environmentally, the push to ban natural gas from homes and commercial buildings is extremely misguided.

- People like gas appliances because they’re reliable, affordable, and clean. Governments shouldn’t take that choice away.

 

Could the 80-year-old phrase “Now we’re cooking with gas” soon become a relic of the past? 

Several cities are studying proposals to restrict the use of natural gas in commercial and residential buildings as a way to combat climate change. 

In the latest push to ban natural gas appliances in homes, a Sierra Club-commissioned report warns of the adverse public health effects from using natural gas stoves, furnaces and water heaters.  

Both economically and environmentally, the push to ban natural gas from homes and commercial buildings is extremely misguided.

For Californians and the rest of the 177 million Americans who use natural gas to heat their homes and cook their food, the costs would be substantial and harm families in a multitude of ways.

For one thing, using natural gas appliances saves families money on their energy bills.  Households that use natural gas for heating, cooking, and drying clothes save nearly $900 per year compared with families using electric appliances. 

Furthermore, mandated restrictions on gas appliances would restrict consumer choice. 

Homeowners and chefs prefer gas ranges because they work quickly and cook more evenly, not to mention that gas ranges still function during power outages. They’re also easier to maintain.  ...

 

In many instances, gas appliances are actually the greener option. As Consumer Affairs reported last year, “Gas takes the trophy as the more eco-friendly option for any appliance. Gas dryers in particular use 30 percent less energy than electric ones, which will reduce your carbon footprint.” 

In fact, the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions actually recommendsreplacing certain electric appliances with natural gas models.

So, why all the backlash? Because despite the economic, environmental, and geopolitical benefits that natural gas delivers, it is still a fossil fuel. 

And despite the fact that environmental activists took money from the natural gas companies to attack coal, it’s now natural gas that has the green target on its back. And they’re shooting at an awfully large target. The U.S. has been the world’s largest natural gas producer for more than a decade.

With an abundance of reserves, natural gas producers can supply Americans with affordable, dependable power well into the future.  ...

 

... Electrification would be extremely costly and cumbersome for families and businesses. It would restrict the ability of consumers to purchase the appliances they want and would be fraught with unintended consequences. 

It’s no surprise these proposals are incredibly unpopular, even in a state like California. People like gas appliances because they’re reliable, affordable, and clean. Governments shouldn’t take that choice away.

 

I don't agree with banning gas cookers but after buying a house with an induction hob there is no going back to gas. 

Likewise I think the push to ban gas boilers is poorly thought out as its hello air source heat pump in most cases. Better to push for ultra high efficiency gas boilers and support hydrogen injection into gas grids (upto about 15% by volume). 

Just done my bit for UK manufacturing last week and bought one of these to replace the antique we currently have

https://www.glow-worm.co.uk/homeowner/products/energy-regular-boiler-21888.html

That'll be another 4000kwh off annual gas demand!

 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

These Eco-warriors are the type that never have any skin in the game! They should all be put on an island and made to stay without all the items oil and gas provide....

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 5/2/2020 at 3:03 PM, RichieRich216 said:

These Eco-warriors are the type that never have any skin in the game! They should all be put on an island and made to stay without all the items oil and gas provide....

Fortunately, they're not having children and will die out in a generation or two.

[John Foote + 1,135]

On 5/2/2020 at 3:25 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

After using natural gas for cooking for almost 20 years in SE Asia, it's still weird for me to be using electricity to cook back here in the U.S.  I much prefer natural gas for cooking. 

One of the things I found strangest at Aramco was being all electric, no gas stove tops.

In the USA I consider gas cooking as go/no-go for any house I buy. I suppose in some locations you don't have an option. And for grilling, prefer charcoal.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Foote

Your preference for gas accessibility as a deal breaker applies in spades to commercial operations.

When the folks up in New England shot down the 2 new big pipelines by which natgas could supply that region with multi decades long abundant, cheap energy, several dramatic consequences quickly kicked in, with moratoria on new hook ups being just one result.

New restaurants immediately halted plans for expansion as the idea of using electric for cooking, for heating water for dish washing, for warming structure interiors during their cold winters was so presposterous that, naturally, all plans came to a halt.

Ditto for new housing developments including several targeting senior citizen residences.

 

Some alternative plans incorporated digging holes nearby, burying large propane tanks, and then re-supply said tanks with diese-fueled trucks for decades.

 

The absolute dearth of real world awareness of so many of these artistic/academic types fervently devoted to Saving The Planet is nothing short of tragic.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

The absolute dearth of real world awareness of so many of these artistic/academic types fervently devoted to Saving The Planet is nothing short of tragic.

They don't care.  It is an ideology.  You cannot debate with ideology.  You do, and your head gets severed from the body.  The French will tell you all about that. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

When the folks up in New England shot down the 2 new big pipelines by which natgas could supply that region with multi decades long abundant, cheap energy, several dramatic consequences quickly kicked in, with moratoria on new hook ups being just one result.

Another consequence was that Boston had to buy a ship-load of LNG from Russia, in order to get through the last winter.  What happened was that there were insufficient supplies, and without the pipeline, no way to get it to Boston.  A domestic purchase of LNG was not possible due to no US-built ships, and the Jones Act prohibited using a foreign vessel for LNG from the US Gulf.  So, bottom line, Russia became the supplier, at an exorbitant price incidentally.  Aren't the Leftists just brilliant?

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. van Eck

Actually,  that much publicised Yamal-sourced shipment was repeated one year later and received virtually NO publicity.

The FSRU Exemplar arrived at the Northeast Gateway Port outside Boston late December, 2018 carrying Yamal product (via St. Nazaire) and stayed through February 2019.

It combined with sister FSRU, Express, to acheive a then-world record sendout of 800 million cubic feet. The Express carried Trinidadian LNG.

(A new record of >1Bcf sendout was set last week by the single FSRU, Experience, outside Rio).

It is simply astounding to witness these sincere, well intentioned, grossly ignorant individuals - and their highly destructive actions - as they simply have no clue, no perspective of the consequences of their efforts.

The global buildout of hydrocarbon fueled power plants is ramping up ferociously (see Vietnam and Brazil as just 2 of dozens of examples).

I refrain from delving into the psychological components that may motivate these folks, but rational, clear-eyed self interest does not seem to loom large within their collective makeup.