14 ms·

Sierra Club, environmental groups petition EPA to ban natural gas for heating

64 points by Bostonian 4y ago

matthewmacleod 4y ago
This isn’t as extreme as some of the comments suggest. The UK is already expected to soft-ban the installation of natural gas heating in all new properties from 2025, and the sale of gas boilers from 2035.
- hotz 4y ago
  Other countries also being moronic doesn't make the bad idea better.
  - Tostino 4y ago
    The discourse on this site has gone down the drain. What a low effort comment. This thread is just riddled with them from people who seem too angry to form a rational thought.
nightski 4y ago
This is the tone-deafness that ruins all efforts to actually convince people to take climate change seriously. It's extremely harmful. Yes high efficiency heat pumps are getting better. But they aren't readily available. If they are, very few companies install/service them. No one has them in the Midwestern area I live in. They also only work down to say -20F and we do have quite a few days below that so you can't just make natural gas illegal. Not to mention not everyone can afford it. Maybe let's focus on making them readily available and cheap instead of just banning things outright.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Exactly. This is so stupid. There also isn’t a low temperature heat pump solution that works for radiators. I’m actually really interested in heat pumps as my boiler is a few years away from end of life. But I really resent being forced to do something drastic and end up buying some shitty first generation product because some advocate in a California coastal climate says so. If this comes to my state, I’ll hold my nose while doing it, but I’ll vote republican to stop it.
  - hwillis 4y ago
    > There also isn’t a low temperature heat pump solution that works for radiators. There are. Here's one [1] that works down to -26 Celsius (47 F below freezing!!) and connects to radiators. In practice it will also work below -26 C, since multi-zone pumps can use other rooms to balance out reliance on the external radiator. It's also crazy efficient: at -13 C/5 F it still moves 12078.98 BTUs of heat per kWh of electricity consumed. At 10.42 cents/kWh that's nearly half the price of natural gas. [1]: https://www.fujitsu-general.com/us/products/vrf/j4/aou60rlavm4.html https://www.fujitsu-general.com/us/products/vrf/j4/aou60rlav...
    - sixstringtheory 4y ago
      -26°C is only -14.8°F, but your point stands, they’re getting better at lower temps.
      - hwillis 4y ago
        15 F is 47 F below freezing, which is what I meant to say.
    - denimnerd42 4y ago
      -40C is -40F so your conversion isn't right. We spend most of the winter night below 0F so these heat pump options don't look viable. Not to mention we have no where outside to put this thing it won't be covered in snow. Resistive heat is the only thing that seems viable and that's crazy expensive.
      - hwillis 4y ago
        47 F below freezing, not below zero. > We spend most of the winter night below 0F so these heat pump options don't look viable. The heat pump does not stop working or turn off at -15 F. It reaches COP=1. It still warms your house, just not more efficiently than resistive heat. Your house also stores warmth, and if insulated well it will not become cold during whatever period the temperature drops below -25 F. Failing both of those, just keep whatever heating you have right now. That's all you have to do. > Not to mention we have no where outside to put this thing it won't be covered in snow. You do. Put it on a stand. Hang it on a wall if you like. Put it on the roof. It does not need to sit on the ground.
- olliecornelia 4y ago
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  The part that really annoys me is after these people wear out their welcome and get sufficiently marginalized the adults will have decades less with which to tackle the problems. The opportunity costs of pretending extremists like this have workable plans worthy of consideration is large.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
  From the Sierra Club statement on Nuclear power: > The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process, pending: > The dangers posed by the probable releases of tritium used by fusion plants, the problems with decommissioning these plants, and their high costs lead the Sierra Club to believe that the development of fusion reactors to generate electricity should not be pursued at this time. The Sierra Club has always had an anti-human feel to it, starting with John Muir and his despicable racism toward the indigenous people.
  - prescriptivist 4y ago
    Muir was a racist yes, but also he just really didn't like anyone. He was generally just a mercurial and unlikeable person. I read a biography of him, A Passion For Nature, a few years ago. I knew nothing about Muir going into the book and by the end I was ready for him to croak so I could finish the book and never think about him again.
  - _fat_santa 4y ago
    It's hard to take them seriously with their policy prescriptions[1]. They mention that they oppose: coal power, nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and certain applications of solar power. Ok sierra club, please explain how we are going to generate power? I see this from activists alot. They recommend some bananas policy prescription, and when the experts in that field say "that's not possible" the reply is always: "well you're the expert, just figure it out". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club
- bpoyner 4y ago
  In large parts of New England they use heating oil, which is similar to diesel and pollutes the air more than natural gas. There are many things they could be taking on, but natural gas isn't the worst of them.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    A proper New Englander would be happiest without heat, but the pipes must be kept from freezing.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      I'd gladly suffer through whatever cold it took to make the improper new englanders move elsewhere, which would make me very happy.
- pacbard 4y ago
  The problem with my experience in the Midwest (Michigan in particular) is that their power grid is so bad that I would lose electricity for an average of 1 week each year (the problem is so widespread that Michigan has laws in place to protect utility companies against customer claims for interruptions less than 5 days[^1]). If you get a nasty February ice storm that cuts a power line, you can be without electric power in 0F weather for up to 5 days. I guess people can install natural gas generators for that occurrence, but that seems to be a little bit counterintuitive (also, would a gas company provide emergency-only service?). I am not sure if heat pumps can work off regular gas powered portable generators that people usually use for emergency power. [1]: https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mpsc/consumer/info/tips/mpsc-ca_electricoutageservicecredits.pdf?rev=39395f88253e49a98813c442d75bdb48 https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mpsc/consu...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kalium 4y ago
    To add to this, there was a major storm last week that knocked out power for significant chunk of the Detroit area for up to three days. That's in August, mostly from wind.
    - generallee5686 4y ago
      My neighbor was out from Monday until Friday evening. I think it was actually up to _6_ days...
    - alphabettsy 4y ago
      These kinds of storms happen rarely if ever happen in the winter and they typically happen in the spring and summer so I’m not sure how this presents much of an issue for heating. They seem to impact rural areas much worse though.
      - ridgered4 4y ago
        In the northeast all my worst power outages happened during the winter. Usually from ice storms or even just an overabundance of wet snow causing tons of tree limbs to come down at once.
- tootie 4y ago
  I actually disagree, but only because I'm reading between the lines. The place for carefully outlined policy with explicit exceptions, or funding associated with grid improvements or the like go through Congress and they know that. My take is that the Sierra Club is essentially making a very public opening bid in their bargain to reduce gas heating as much as possible. In a negotiation, you don't start with what you'd settle for. You start with the most extreme position you can plausibly stake out, then give up ground inch by inch to land at something reasonable. They'll get the chance to put their evidence on the record, maybe drag some witnesses to speak on the record, score some discovery wins, force a few rulings to set some precedent. And also they can fundraise like hell off of it. It's gamemanship for sure, but I support that they're pushing in the right direction.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    Gamesmanship like this is counterproductive when it gets everyone on your side grouped in with whoever on your side is playing "bad cop".
    - swatcoder 4y ago
      Can you provide some examples where non-trivial legislative or regulatory policies were changed without such bargaining games? By the nature of simply being an issue, you always have multiple power bases and advocacy groups staked out around a bureaucracy designed to do no more than it's forced to. If you have a better way to resolve issues than with this kind of postured negotiation, that would be wonderful, but it feels like it would also be pretty darn novel.
      - landemva 4y ago
        Some State initiatives to put MJ on the ballot were successful, and did not involve State legislature nor involve staking an extreme position. Sierra Club seems to be pandering to their donor base.
        alphabettsy 4y ago
- jlkuester7 4y ago
  I agree with your take. This is my honest followup question: can eliminating gas alternatives from the equation help make electric heat pumps more cheep/available? It seems like in the short-term it could make things tricky, but long term it feels like competition in the heat pump market should result in better products and lower prices... I am not so naive as to think that government interference in a market will inevitably cause a good result, but it seems like properly targeted regulation can help trigger a market shift that is ultimately beneficial to the environment and to consumers...
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    Elimination of competition usually has the opposite effect. Subsidies can have the effect you describe. Heat pumps have been subsidized for some time and they have simultaneously improved leaps and bounds over a short period. This subsidy is expanded under a law just signed into effect by the president. Even without these subsidies, heat pumps are more cost effective than natural gas in most cases. There is in fact almost no good reason to ban gas appliances at this point as they are going to decline rapidly without a ban. The Sierra Club in general is made up of out of touch rich people. This is 100% them letting their privellege flag fly. Edit: One thing I should've noted is that besides green house gas emissions there is a credible concern around the pollution produced by gas burning appliances. Several studies have shown a link between premature cardiovascular deaths and residential gas burning equipment. The issues are particularly pronounced among individuals with asthma. We should probably cease to use residential gas appliances in the near future but the way the market is going, a ban seems unnecessary and the imposition of such a ban would place serious burdens on the poor.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  > This is the tone-deafness that ruins all efforts to actually convince people to take climate change seriously. It's extremely harmful. It doesn't help when critics exaggerate what's being suggested. They're an issue advocacy group pushing for regulatory changes that will of course involve a long, slow transition window when actually enacted by the legislature or EPA. They're not asking for agents in jackboots to start seizing gas furnaces tomorrow. They're playing a necessary role in getting a slow-moving regulator to start moving forward on a plan that will take a decade to gradually roll out and that will incentivize further competition and innovation in alternative solutions over the course of five years or a decade or whatever.
  - dudebrooo 4y ago
    Its just wild that in the last decades of such abundance very little resources are put towards the practical aspects of getting people off fossil fuels - they really just preach from their podium and nothing more - and now in the early months leading into the absolute winter of hell for hundreds of millions in Europe they decide to use this kind of rhetoric at the podium (god help us if anyone or any government takes the rhetoric seriously)
    - hwillis 4y ago
      > and now in the early months leading into the absolute winter of hell for hundreds of millions in Europe they decide to use this kind of rhetoric at the podium You're referring to natural gas shortages? If you used the natural gas in europe to generate electricity instead of heat, it would go 3.6x farther with heat pumps. So your rhetoric really seems to ring hollow.
      - yetanotherloser 4y ago
        3.6x, given 50% efficient generation and transmission, would require a heat pump COP about 7.2. Unfortunately real heat pump COPs are 3 or less, meaning the gas goes 1.5x further or less. This is still great (since it saves gas and there are other sources of electric) but unfortunately it's really high monetary cost (since the electric costs about 3x the gas, so even if the heat pump were free, it costs twice as much to run; electric prices follow gas prices closely so they don't get cheaper when gas runs short). So it's a hard sell. I think they're clever devices, I like them, I will probably buy one. But they're no panacea.
- slavik81 4y ago
  I tried to get a heat pump this summer when I got AC installed. The AC systems all worked with my existing furnace, but the dealer didn't have any heat pumps that could supplement my existing furnace. It was a sad moment for me when I had to give up on that.
  - nightski 4y ago
    Yeah I just had the exact same experience. It was frustrating, I was really looking for a heat pump.
- zionic 4y ago
  Modern ones work, like you said, down to -20F. One important caveat however is that they don't not-work below -20F, they just fall back to "emergency heat" aka resistive coils. While of course emergency-heat uses far more power that power can still be green. The biggest problem remaining is cost, $20k+ for a 24 SEER heat pump is just bonkers.
japhib 4y ago
Nice. I hope this goes through, although there's approximately a 0% chance that it will, or if it does, conservative justices will likely strike it down pretty quickly.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  Ok, lets think this through a bit. About 48% of homes in the US are heated with natural gas. This is mostly because it is the cheapest option available in many areas. The immediate result of banning natural gas heating is more expensive heating for 48% of homes. The longer term result is more expensive home ownership. More expensive home ownership means less people able to afford a home. People are going to use the cheapest option to heat their home. If you truly want people to switch from natural gas then make a cheaper option. Forcing change is rarely the best course. Make something cheaper or easier and people will change on their own. You don't see many horse and buggies or gas lights around much anymore. They were supplanted by better options not forced.
  - smileysteve 4y ago
    I'm in a new home partly heated (thanks to the gas company subsidizing installs) by natural gas, it's a fleece of the Monopoly power granted by my state. In the southeast, my furnace is used 3 months a year, my highest bill is $50 in the last 12 months. But in ~9 months of 0 therm usage, the minimum bill is $30. (That's right, 3/5 of every home in my region is likely to overhead) But it's not just a fleece from the billing and the rate. Maintaining the infrastructure is supported by my property taxes and state income taxes (and the additional overhead of unneeded infrastructure in road maintenance, disasters, or simple things like utility marking. Then there are other fleeces involved that are strictly job creation. "De-regulation" where every year I have to play a game to get the best teaser rate to get the same gas (that might be traded differently) (when the state commissioner can require rates be a certain point in the market as they do of the - same company by the way - electric infrastructure.) So I have to pay with my time, and in many ways money, just to play this game. The heat is quick, the gas stove is slower than induction (I have a single induction unit I use most of the time), and the fireplace is comforting.
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
Please explain to me how an electric heat pump - even one designed to be highly efficient in a cold climate - is supposed to keep me from freezing to death when my power goes out every winter from an ice storm taking down trees (which take down my power lines) when it's -17F outside. If I didn't have a propane furnace I'd have to fly to Florida every winter.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  In my case at least, my natural gas furnace doesn't work without electricity. I'd need a backup generator for it.
  - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
    Mine also uses electricity but a very small amount. When the power goes out I use a car battery, with a mini generator or my car to recharge. Also use it for my well water pump. (Afaik I'd need substantially more power for an electric heat pump for 2 weeks)
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      Interesting. My well water pump is 220v and draws quite a few amps. At least on start. I don't think I could run it off my "backup generation" (12amp 120v outlet coming out of my Outlander PHEV). It's also hard wired right to the panel.
      - amluto 4y ago
        Some pumps can be connected to some sort of soft start circuit. Others, especially three phase pumps, can run off a VFD that will start it quite gently. (And those VFDs run off single phase power just fine — they create a third phase internally.) And some pumps (e.g. Grundfos SQE) have their own drives down the hole.
        cmrdporcupine 4y ago
testfoobar 4y ago
In the US, use of residential natural gas has stayed nearly constant for decades. Natural gas use for electricity generation on the other hand has nearly gone up by 4 times in the past 40 years: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natural-gas.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natur... Restricting or eliminating home usage of natural gas seems identical in its relative ineffectiveness as restricting home water use while ignoring large agricultural users.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  These are very different because of the end goal. A world where we don't drive our food and eventually ourselves extinct is a world with vastly less gas use, to the point where the uses you highlighted (both electricity generation and home heating) are both eliminated entirely while I assure you we're not going to stop using water. We need to change how it's assigned, who gets access and to how much, but we're not going to eliminate it. So then the question is, if we're eliminating all gas usage, why do A before B rather than B before A and the answer to that is very simple. Electricity is fungible, and it's much harder to change all the millions of individual home and small business installations, so you should begin with that first or you'll never get done.
  - pythonaut_16 4y ago
    You're proving the parent's point. Electricity is fungible so it will be easier to replace natural gas used for electricity than the millions of homes heated by it.
  - dogman144 4y ago
    This makes all of zero sense, especially for a forum populated by engineer-types who are familiar with turning abstract ideas into tangible and highly scalable applications. A subset of users who use a ton in % terms, and can be targeted cleanly and clearly to change use, translates into a large % decrease with the minimal amount of work. You are suggesting a waterfall-style approach. Toil for years because it’s harder?
colpabar 4y ago
I am all for heat pumps, but this seems a bit extreme. They want this to be enacted within one year? They want a gas stove to be regulated the same way as a power plant? At a time when we _badly_ need to build more housing that people can actually afford, artificially raising the cost of building new homes also seems problematic. The rhetoric used by the republican lawmakers opposed to it does sound like the usual anti-regulation talking points, but I have to agree with them in this case. This would make life a lot harder and more expensive for a lot of people and I don't think "a few environmental groups" is enough consensus for the entire country.
- jdhn 4y ago
  They're starting off by stating their ultimate goal (ban natural gas), but will end up walking it back as a "compromise" in order to seem not as extreme.
- jabl 4y ago
  Would it actually raise the cost? Yes, a heat pump is more expensive than a gas furnace, but for an all-electric home you save the cost of a gas hookup. Hell, when building new neighborhoods, can save infrastructure costs by not building out gas infrastructure. Also, depending on what kind of heat pump you install it can also function as an AC unit, so you don't need to install separate AC. Besides, if you're concerned about affordable housing, wouldn't (in the US at least) the first priority be to kill single-family zoning?
seltzered_ 4y ago
"The petition, if implemented by the EPA, would require homeowners to replace gas appliances when they break down or must be replaced with expensive new heat pump technology." Assuming a heat pump lasts about 10 years, Has there been any analysis of the supply chain dependencies or repairability of heat pumps? I've asked this elsewhere and have had trouble figuring this out. Saying this as someone currently fixing an old house, made haphazard 'kotatsu' heating setups, seen plenty of videos and articles evangelizing heat pumps, yet feel like there's little asked about the long term resilience or repairability of a given tech despite the greater efficiency.
- msh 4y ago
  I think they last a lot longer than 10 years. I am not in the US but have been looking at air to water heat pumps and several of them are sold with 15 years warranty.
- smileysteve 4y ago
  > Assuming a heat pump lasts about 10 years Residential heat pumps are estimated to last 20-25 years; with typical services being capacitor changes, electromechanical contactors, and coil cleaning. Digital thermostats from 15 years ago prevent the most common compressor issues. Smart thermostats can now detect symptoms proactively. In the last 15 years, we've seen technological advances in compressor, gas, and electronics (as well as air to ground and air to water). And better calculations for sizing and air quality.
fallingfrog 4y ago
This feels like something that really only makes sense as part of a greater plan. Like, if the government announced they were phasing out fossil fuel home heating by providing heat pumps in new construction for cheap, while simultaneously having a plan to expand the power grid to accommodate the new power requirements, that would be fine. But this feels really slapdash and is likely to have unanticipated side effects.
- smileysteve 4y ago
  In the US, there is a recent "inflation reduction act" that passed (< 1 month ago, after 2 years of discussion) in reconciliation that offers tax credits for heat pump, heat pump water heaters, solar panels, and electric cars - subsidizes renewable energy sources - and to some chagrin, subsidizes traditional electrical generation energy sources.
  - celestialcheese 4y ago
    Up to 8k rebate for heat pumps too, which is enough to push middle class eco conscious people to spend the extra money. Although for colder climates, installs can be nearly 3x as much as nat gas, so drop in the bucket. Also doesn't account for costs related to panel upgrades that often needs to happen in older homes to handle all these new electric appliances.
    - smileysteve 4y ago
      I want induction, but no 240 to range because it's gas. It's insulated well (every vertical wire well sealed) so getting new electrical in means significant access holes to be made. Similar with hot water heater, brand new, so I don't feel like it's reasonable to go buy a new hybrid.
potbelly83 4y ago
How about first tackling the low hanging fruit like a) private jet flights b) cruise ships c) methane production by agriculture rather than again putting all the responsibility on the working/middle classes?
- nxm 4y ago
  That will adversely impact the lives of the rich which push for the common man to take the blunt of the economic pain, which is a non starter.
  - jlkuester7 4y ago
    In general I agree with you. Pretty much any regulation meant to target the rich ends up coming back to bite the middle class somehow. That being said, after thinking about it for awhile, I have really struggled to come up with a scenario where there is negative consequences for common folks caused by more regulation of private jets. Worst thing I can think of is the disruption of aerospace jobs that it would cause.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  How about moving the working/middle class from single family homes to apartment complexes and starting using public transportation instead of cars? That would certainly be more energy efficient than cancelling a few private jet flights.
  - nxm 4y ago
    So the lower class folks have to uproot their lives so that the rich can continue theirs?
  - baggy_trough 4y ago
    How about letting people live like they want?
    - ivan_gammel 4y ago
it_citizen 4y ago
> We are facing the worst energy crisis since Jimmy Carter, yet these inflation-loving leftists are more worried about how to take away Americans’ reliable heating than they are about creating viable solutions. It is pretty insane how debating a hot topic is now impossible. They are not even able to consider that an opposing political force might have different priorities or might simply be misguided. They just want to steal heating from americans because they are evil.
tastyfreeze 4y ago
How about making an alternative to natural gas that is cheaper to heat a home instead of making everybody's life worse by forcing your morals into law.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Unfortunately what will happen instead is natural gas is going to become just-as or almost-as expensive as oil or electric heat. Honestly if I could go back 10 years when I replaced my oil furnace with gas, I'd definitely attempt to install a ground source heat pump instead. With the gas change it "paid for itself" in about 5 years, and I'd still be waiting for the ground source system, but I'd be frankly more future proof. I can generate my own electricity with solar. I can't make my own natural gas.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Air source heat pumps have improved to the point that ground source heat pumps are losing out in most places.
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      Even in rural places with more room and potentially cheaper excavation? In my case I'm on 6 acres.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Yes, I believe it's the case even there.
        jabl 4y ago
        Can confirm. Over here 20 years ago you would be laughed out of the room if you suggested to use an air-source heat pump to heat a house. Nowadays they are the norm, and ground source are a minority. It also helps that building insulation standards have crept upwards, so you don't need as much energy to heat a modern building, making it a win for the lower capital cost of an air source system.
baggy_trough 4y ago
This is the equivalent of Californian towns banning natural gas at the same time that electrical power goes off for multiple hours or even days during heat waves.
mcbishop 4y ago
Like other commenters, I wouldn't support this ban. With that said... I went to the Pickathon music festival last month (near Portland). The festival requires that all food from vendors be served in a reusable wide/shallow plastic bowl. Put the dirty bowl in a bin, and get a token for the next food purchase. Same idea with a tin cup, but attendees hold onto the cup (it comes with a carabiner). No single-use plastic allowed. Friends and I found the system easy and pleasant. A festival founder said in an interview that he hasn't heard complaints. He said other festivals have tried making this an option, but it didn't get traction. The point is... sometimes it's easier for people to adjust to a new hard requirement, vs. swimming up-stream in a society that's very slow to adapt (because we're overwhelmed and status quo is known and relatively safe).
- colpabar 4y ago
  The difference here is that the festival made it harder for the vendors, not the consumers. People can still get their food. To make it analogous to banning natural gas, imagine if the festival banned plastic utensils and told everyone they had to buy their own, and they had to be a very specific kind that was expensive. I’m all in favor of what the festival did though. I hate how much trash large gatherings can produce.
  - mcbishop 4y ago
    I agree. A successful natural-gas ban would require impeccable execution (with huge public investment). I wouldn't trust federal gov't or state gov'ts to pull that off.
TedShiller 4y ago
Yes let’s use electricity which comes from coal
- steviedotboston 4y ago
  not sure where you live but the majority of my electricity in the midwest comes from nuclear power
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    The Sierra Club also wants to get rid of nuclear power.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  In the US, just 21.8% of electrical generation comes from coal.
  - chollida1 4y ago
    > In the US, just 21.8% of electrical generation comes from coal. That seems incredibly high. Canada is less than half of that. In a country with a far more spread out population and colder winters.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      It's come down a lot in the last 15 years or so. Canada has lots and lots of hydro (59.3% of Canada's electricity generation), and the low population density means it will cover much of your demand.
francisofascii 4y ago
I was hoping the process of converting biomass to natural gas would someday become viable, since so many existing homes are setup for NG. https://scitechdaily.com/efficient-new-catalytic-approach-directly-converts-raw-biomass-into-natural-gas-with-low-carbon-footprint/ https://scitechdaily.com/efficient-new-catalytic-approach-di...
tamaharbor 4y ago
Isn’t natural gas an integral component of the electricity generation required to operate heat pumps?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Natural gas is not required for anything. In particular, it's not required to back up renewables. It may currently be cheapest for doing that, but it's not required for it, and alternatives such as batteries and hydrogen would be affordable (and cheaper than nuclear).
  - tamaharbor 4y ago
    I did not say natural gas was required, but it is used to produce 38% of electricity in the US at this time.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      You insinuated (by the leading question) that it was an "integral component of the electricity generation required". In what sense is that not saying it's required? "Integral" used in this sense means "essential". That is, without it, there would not be electricity generation. If your point is just "natural gas is currently used for electricity generation", then that's no argument against using heat pumps. I'll add that you get more heating from using NG combined cycle + a modern home heat pump than you'd get just burning the NG in a home furnace.
      - denimnerd42 4y ago
        Isn't that efficiency highly variable on outside temperature?
        pfdietz 4y ago
        In practice it's not going to push it over the line, especially with modern heat pumps, which having amazingly good COP even at very low temperature. Gas-fired heat pumps might still be more efficient (or might not), as one is also effectively capturing and using the waste heat from the generation of work from the gas.
zcw100 4y ago
I agree with most of the comments about how ineffective this would be and the numerous problems it would cause but to provide some balance this is not some edict, or even law. Two dozen organizations "petitioned" the EPA. This is the equivalent of sending a strongly worded letter saying, "Could you pretty please do this?". It can and probably will go straight into the trash. These are environmental organizations, of course they sent a letter. That's what they do. They'll also probably get a letter from all the heat pump manufacturers saying they're cool with it, and other letters from people selling natural gas and gas furnaces. I'm sure they'd like you to stop cutting down trees and that ain't going to happen either.
bjt2n3904 4y ago
I know this sentiment is unpopular here on HN, but when are we going to realize that environmentalism is a death cult? Burning coal to run the electric cars. Shutting down nuclear reactors, and increasing dependence on oil from oppressive countries. Banning the sale of ICE vehicles, and forcing everyone to move onto electric vehicles when the existing grid can't even support air conditioning. Punitively taxing the use of fertilizer during a time of food shortage. I'm all out of charity guys. These people don't want to save the environment. They just want to create suffering.
- hotz 4y ago
  Unfortunately some people will never wake up.
BurningFrog 4y ago
The Sierra Club was once a fairly pragmatic organization. Those days are long gone.
snowwrestler 4y ago
If this petition was to ban the general cutting and burning of wood for cooking and heating, we would all laugh because the downsides of powering our lifestyles that way are so obvious to us today. Some people do use wood for heating (in a wood-burning stove for example) but those are rare exceptions that either make sense contextually (a cabin far from infrastructure) or as a sort of aesthetic experience, like playing your favorite album on vinyl instead of Spotify. But we all know why we should not heat, say, every house in Chicago primarily by cutting and burning trees. I think folks in the future will feel the same way about pulling a bunch of gas out of the ground and individually burning that in our basements, closets, or kitchens. Furnaces are, let’s face it, very old school, dirty and poorly optimized technologies. I can literally see the blue flames through gaps in the metal when my furnace is on, and it’s a nice new high-efficiency model that is less than a decade old. I have carbon monoxide alarms in my bedrooms. Great. Sure, this petition is a blunt instrument that would cause havoc if implemented as written. But the thing about transitions is that you have to start somewhere or it will never happen. Can we agree that phasing out gas makes sense? Even if this specific petition is flawed.
- baggy_trough 4y ago
  Advocating for policies that "would cause havoc" is a bad idea if you want your movement to be attractive to the marginal voter.
- clumsysmurf 4y ago
  In Phoenix, seems people use fires for atmosphere as soon as it gets below 80'F. They probably also have the air conditooner on at the same time :P
- pandaman 4y ago
  As far as I know, nobody banned wood stoves in the US in order to transition to gas. People transitioned to the better option of gas themselves. As it is now, gas is a better option than electric not just for heat but for other appliances too (cooking, drying, hot water). This is why you want to ban gas. When/if electric appliances become better than gas people will switch to them naturally, without any need for regulation. The same way they switched from horses to cars and from burning wood to burning gas.
bilsbie 4y ago
I think solar and battery will be there so soon! Why not let people be comfortable during the transition instead of destabilizing society?
algoatecorn 4y ago
HN is supposed to be a place of discourse and problem solving. I'm not a heat system scholar. Are there any experts on this matter who would be able to point me toward figures and data regarding: - electricity sources for heating - percentage of emissions coming from home heating via natural gas vs coal-originating electric heaters - efficiency of progress over the years, expected trajectory - predictions for how this will all actually play out, without hyperbole
- hwillis 4y ago
  > electricity sources for heating Weird question. You're looking for "carbon intensity", the CO2 emitted per kWh: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1133295/electric-sector-carbon-dioxide-emission-rate-by-state-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1133295/electric-sector-... > percentage of emissions coming from home heating via natural gas vs coal-originating electric heaters Surely you mean relative emissions, not percent. Natural gas creates 53 kg of CO2 per mmBTU. A good heat pump (for instance: https://www.fujitsu-general.com/us/products/vrf/j4/aou60rlavm4.html https://www.fujitsu-general.com/us/products/vrf/j4/aou60rlav...) has a COP of 3.6+, meaning 3.6 kWh of heat per kWh of electricity. Alternately, 81.4+ kWh per mmBTU. Any state with a carbon intensity below 1,435 lbs CO2 per MWh will emit less CO2 using a heat pump rather than natural gas. Six states have higher carbon intensities: Utah, Indiana, Missouri, Wyoming, Kentucky and West Virginia. In the state with the lowest carbon intensity, Washington, 1 mmBTU of natural gas will emit 7.21x as much CO2 as 1 mmBTU from a heat pump. > efficiency of progress over the years, expected trajectory Heat pumps are already half the price of gas heating, per BTU. The carbon intensity in those 6 states will rapidly decrease as natural gas outcompetes coal. In 5 years it's likely every state will have <1435 carbon intensity.
kevinpet 4y ago
The supreme court just slapped down the EPA for trying to overstep their authority. Regardless of the merits of banning natural gas for heating, this is pure grandstanding because they know the EPA cannot do this. On the merits, requiring replacement with a different type of unit is foolish policy and not the right starting point. As it stands now, new houses are still being built with natural gas. Eliminating that would be a bigger win, and twenty years from now you can work on phasing out what already exists.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  The IRA addressed that ruling by formally stating that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pollutants. This grants the EPA the authority that SCOTUS said they were lacking. So, you should have said the EPA "could not do this, but now they can." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court...
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    > CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pollutants As an aside, that is going to have some weird unforeseen effects at low levels because it means that almost every car and every dwelling or heated structure emits "pollutants" and there's god knows how many other laws that they therefore become subject to.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Every last thing powered by fossil fuels is a valid target for pollution control, yes. I'm glad you understand the scope of the problem.
  - landemva 4y ago
    If CO2 is a pollutant, then elimination of exhaling humans is a logical focus for Sierra Club.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
justinzollars 4y ago
If you are a member of the Sierra Club, now is a good time to consider revoking your membership. Natural gas is a great source of energy and as we will soon see in Europe, not easily replaced. Europe faces an economic depression because its supply natural gas has been intentionally cut off. This is not a serious proposal today. Cancel Membership here: https://donotpay.com/learn/cancel-sierra-club/#:~:text=To%20cancel%20with%20Sierra%20Club,and%20anything%20else%20considered%20relevant https://donotpay.com/learn/cancel-sierra-club/#:~:text=To%20.... > To cancel with Sierra Club directly, send them an email with your request at member.care@sierraclub.org. It is recommended to include as much information as possible, such as your membership ID, account information, and anything else considered relevant.
asow92 4y ago
Are they going to pay to have my gas furnace replaced with a heat pump and buy me a new range? (as a side note: I prefer gas ranges over electric and induction in my cooking experience) Otherwise I'm going to freeze and go broke in Upstate NY.
mech987 4y ago
Isn't heating a really good way to use natural gas compared to other ways to use it? 90%+ efficiency ain't bad.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  That's actually poor efficiency, since there's a large second law loss burning the natural gas to make low grade heat. You can get COP > 100% with a gas-fired heat pump, which are used commercially and in some larger (> 4000 sq. ft.) homes.
jedberg 4y ago
Their goal is to get people switch to electric heat pumps. So basically we know: 1. Gas is bad 2. Heat pumps are a viable alternative (maybe in most cases?) 3. The supply of heat pumps is low because they aren't popular (yet). This is a standard problem with two standard solutions: 1. Ban the bad thing, forcing the market to shift to the alternative, causing a lot of short term pain as the supply chain for the new thing ramps up 2. Subsidize the new thing with government money so that it's cheaper than the old thing and people naturally shift to it as they build new or upgrade. Option 1 makes it happen faster while sacrificing some people (usually poor and marginalized groups) while option 2 is more friendly to society at the cost of slower adoption. Seems like the environmental groups are coming from the point of view of sacrificing some to make things move faster. They would probably make the argument that those people will be sacrificed anyway during rapid climate change. So the real debate here is, will climate change slow down enough to make a difference based on the speed of adoption of residential heat pumps? I don't think it will. In which case option 2 is the better one -- subsidize heat pumps, don't ban gas.
- celestialcheese 4y ago
  Option 2 is what just passed with the IRA. Nearly 4.5b in rebates for things like heat pumps, electric stoves, upgraded electrical and insulation. [1] I imagine we'll be seeing a lot more mailers ad sales folks next year crawling middle and lower income neighborhoods selling packages that take full advantages of these credits. No clue how supply chains are going to handle the increased material demands these electric appliances need, but it'll be interesting to watch. 1 - https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/inflation-reduction-act https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/inflation-reduction-a...
nathanaldensr 4y ago
These people want you starving, freezing, homeless, and, frankly, dead. I hope everyone plans accordingly. You are the carbon they want to eliminate.
Georgelemental 4y ago
They are not petitioning the people's representatives in Congress or the state legislatures; they are petitioning the unelected bureaucrats who have the real power to make sweeping changes to the daily lives of 300+ million Americans. "Our Democracy" becomes more risible each year
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
New homes shouldn't be allowed gas hookups. Isn't that already the case in California? edit: answer, yes basically, city and state rules are moving in that direction https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2021/07/californias-cities-lead-way-pollution-free-homes-and-buildings https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2021/07/californias-citi... You can avoid a lot of wasted time and energy by designing for gas free homes from the start. They're also cheaper to build and to heat. This petition is correct that we need to help low income people to insulate and heat their homes with electricity. But it feels like the EPA stuff may just be lining up a federal ban hammer for states that don't implement sensible rules in the meantime.
CodeWriter23 4y ago
Cool! So, wood stove then?

64 points by Bostonian 4y ago

This isn’t as extreme as some of the comments suggest. The UK is already expected to soft-ban the installation of natural gas heating in all new properties from 2025, and the sale of gas boilers from 2035.

hotz 4y ago
Other countries also being moronic doesn't make the bad idea better.
- Tostino 4y ago
  The discourse on this site has gone down the drain. What a low effort comment. This thread is just riddled with them from people who seem too angry to form a rational thought.

nightski 4y ago

This is the tone-deafness that ruins all efforts to actually convince people to take climate change seriously. It's extremely harmful. Yes high efficiency heat pumps are getting better. But they aren't readily available. If they are, very few companies install/service them. No one has them in the Midwestern area I live in. They also only work down to say -20F and we do have quite a few days below that so you can't just make natural gas illegal. Not to mention not everyone can afford it. Maybe let's focus on making them readily available and cheap instead of just banning things outright.

Spooky23 4y ago
Exactly. This is so stupid. There also isn’t a low temperature heat pump solution that works for radiators. I’m actually really interested in heat pumps as my boiler is a few years away from end of life. But I really resent being forced to do something drastic and end up buying some shitty first generation product because some advocate in a California coastal climate says so. If this comes to my state, I’ll hold my nose while doing it, but I’ll vote republican to stop it.
- hwillis 4y ago
  > There also isn’t a low temperature heat pump solution that works for radiators. There are. Here's one [1] that works down to -26 Celsius (47 F below freezing!!) and connects to radiators. In practice it will also work below -26 C, since multi-zone pumps can use other rooms to balance out reliance on the external radiator. It's also crazy efficient: at -13 C/5 F it still moves 12078.98 BTUs of heat per kWh of electricity consumed. At 10.42 cents/kWh that's nearly half the price of natural gas. [1]: https://www.fujitsu-general.com/us/products/vrf/j4/aou60rlavm4.html https://www.fujitsu-general.com/us/products/vrf/j4/aou60rlav...
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    -26°C is only -14.8°F, but your point stands, they’re getting better at lower temps.
    - hwillis 4y ago
      15 F is 47 F below freezing, which is what I meant to say.
  - denimnerd42 4y ago
    -40C is -40F so your conversion isn't right. We spend most of the winter night below 0F so these heat pump options don't look viable. Not to mention we have no where outside to put this thing it won't be covered in snow. Resistive heat is the only thing that seems viable and that's crazy expensive.
    - hwillis 4y ago
      47 F below freezing, not below zero. > We spend most of the winter night below 0F so these heat pump options don't look viable. The heat pump does not stop working or turn off at -15 F. It reaches COP=1. It still warms your house, just not more efficiently than resistive heat. Your house also stores warmth, and if insulated well it will not become cold during whatever period the temperature drops below -25 F. Failing both of those, just keep whatever heating you have right now. That's all you have to do. > Not to mention we have no where outside to put this thing it won't be covered in snow. You do. Put it on a stand. Hang it on a wall if you like. Put it on the roof. It does not need to sit on the ground.
olliecornelia 4y ago
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
The part that really annoys me is after these people wear out their welcome and get sufficiently marginalized the adults will have decades less with which to tackle the problems. The opportunity costs of pretending extremists like this have workable plans worthy of consideration is large.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
From the Sierra Club statement on Nuclear power: > The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process, pending: > The dangers posed by the probable releases of tritium used by fusion plants, the problems with decommissioning these plants, and their high costs lead the Sierra Club to believe that the development of fusion reactors to generate electricity should not be pursued at this time. The Sierra Club has always had an anti-human feel to it, starting with John Muir and his despicable racism toward the indigenous people.
- prescriptivist 4y ago
  Muir was a racist yes, but also he just really didn't like anyone. He was generally just a mercurial and unlikeable person. I read a biography of him, A Passion For Nature, a few years ago. I knew nothing about Muir going into the book and by the end I was ready for him to croak so I could finish the book and never think about him again.
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  It's hard to take them seriously with their policy prescriptions[1]. They mention that they oppose: coal power, nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and certain applications of solar power. Ok sierra club, please explain how we are going to generate power? I see this from activists alot. They recommend some bananas policy prescription, and when the experts in that field say "that's not possible" the reply is always: "well you're the expert, just figure it out". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club
bpoyner 4y ago
In large parts of New England they use heating oil, which is similar to diesel and pollutes the air more than natural gas. There are many things they could be taking on, but natural gas isn't the worst of them.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  A proper New Englander would be happiest without heat, but the pipes must be kept from freezing.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    I'd gladly suffer through whatever cold it took to make the improper new englanders move elsewhere, which would make me very happy.
pacbard 4y ago
The problem with my experience in the Midwest (Michigan in particular) is that their power grid is so bad that I would lose electricity for an average of 1 week each year (the problem is so widespread that Michigan has laws in place to protect utility companies against customer claims for interruptions less than 5 days[^1]). If you get a nasty February ice storm that cuts a power line, you can be without electric power in 0F weather for up to 5 days. I guess people can install natural gas generators for that occurrence, but that seems to be a little bit counterintuitive (also, would a gas company provide emergency-only service?). I am not sure if heat pumps can work off regular gas powered portable generators that people usually use for emergency power. [1]: https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mpsc/consumer/info/tips/mpsc-ca_electricoutageservicecredits.pdf?rev=39395f88253e49a98813c442d75bdb48 https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mpsc/consu...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Kalium 4y ago
  To add to this, there was a major storm last week that knocked out power for significant chunk of the Detroit area for up to three days. That's in August, mostly from wind.
  - generallee5686 4y ago
    My neighbor was out from Monday until Friday evening. I think it was actually up to _6_ days...
  - alphabettsy 4y ago
    These kinds of storms happen rarely if ever happen in the winter and they typically happen in the spring and summer so I’m not sure how this presents much of an issue for heating. They seem to impact rural areas much worse though.
    - ridgered4 4y ago
      In the northeast all my worst power outages happened during the winter. Usually from ice storms or even just an overabundance of wet snow causing tons of tree limbs to come down at once.
tootie 4y ago
I actually disagree, but only because I'm reading between the lines. The place for carefully outlined policy with explicit exceptions, or funding associated with grid improvements or the like go through Congress and they know that. My take is that the Sierra Club is essentially making a very public opening bid in their bargain to reduce gas heating as much as possible. In a negotiation, you don't start with what you'd settle for. You start with the most extreme position you can plausibly stake out, then give up ground inch by inch to land at something reasonable. They'll get the chance to put their evidence on the record, maybe drag some witnesses to speak on the record, score some discovery wins, force a few rulings to set some precedent. And also they can fundraise like hell off of it. It's gamemanship for sure, but I support that they're pushing in the right direction.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Gamesmanship like this is counterproductive when it gets everyone on your side grouped in with whoever on your side is playing "bad cop".
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    Can you provide some examples where non-trivial legislative or regulatory policies were changed without such bargaining games? By the nature of simply being an issue, you always have multiple power bases and advocacy groups staked out around a bureaucracy designed to do no more than it's forced to. If you have a better way to resolve issues than with this kind of postured negotiation, that would be wonderful, but it feels like it would also be pretty darn novel.
    - landemva 4y ago
      Some State initiatives to put MJ on the ballot were successful, and did not involve State legislature nor involve staking an extreme position. Sierra Club seems to be pandering to their donor base.
      - alphabettsy 4y ago
jlkuester7 4y ago
I agree with your take. This is my honest followup question: can eliminating gas alternatives from the equation help make electric heat pumps more cheep/available? It seems like in the short-term it could make things tricky, but long term it feels like competition in the heat pump market should result in better products and lower prices... I am not so naive as to think that government interference in a market will inevitably cause a good result, but it seems like properly targeted regulation can help trigger a market shift that is ultimately beneficial to the environment and to consumers...
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  Elimination of competition usually has the opposite effect. Subsidies can have the effect you describe. Heat pumps have been subsidized for some time and they have simultaneously improved leaps and bounds over a short period. This subsidy is expanded under a law just signed into effect by the president. Even without these subsidies, heat pumps are more cost effective than natural gas in most cases. There is in fact almost no good reason to ban gas appliances at this point as they are going to decline rapidly without a ban. The Sierra Club in general is made up of out of touch rich people. This is 100% them letting their privellege flag fly. Edit: One thing I should've noted is that besides green house gas emissions there is a credible concern around the pollution produced by gas burning appliances. Several studies have shown a link between premature cardiovascular deaths and residential gas burning equipment. The issues are particularly pronounced among individuals with asthma. We should probably cease to use residential gas appliances in the near future but the way the market is going, a ban seems unnecessary and the imposition of such a ban would place serious burdens on the poor.
swatcoder 4y ago
> This is the tone-deafness that ruins all efforts to actually convince people to take climate change seriously. It's extremely harmful. It doesn't help when critics exaggerate what's being suggested. They're an issue advocacy group pushing for regulatory changes that will of course involve a long, slow transition window when actually enacted by the legislature or EPA. They're not asking for agents in jackboots to start seizing gas furnaces tomorrow. They're playing a necessary role in getting a slow-moving regulator to start moving forward on a plan that will take a decade to gradually roll out and that will incentivize further competition and innovation in alternative solutions over the course of five years or a decade or whatever.
- dudebrooo 4y ago
  Its just wild that in the last decades of such abundance very little resources are put towards the practical aspects of getting people off fossil fuels - they really just preach from their podium and nothing more - and now in the early months leading into the absolute winter of hell for hundreds of millions in Europe they decide to use this kind of rhetoric at the podium (god help us if anyone or any government takes the rhetoric seriously)
  - hwillis 4y ago
    > and now in the early months leading into the absolute winter of hell for hundreds of millions in Europe they decide to use this kind of rhetoric at the podium You're referring to natural gas shortages? If you used the natural gas in europe to generate electricity instead of heat, it would go 3.6x farther with heat pumps. So your rhetoric really seems to ring hollow.
    - yetanotherloser 4y ago
      3.6x, given 50% efficient generation and transmission, would require a heat pump COP about 7.2. Unfortunately real heat pump COPs are 3 or less, meaning the gas goes 1.5x further or less. This is still great (since it saves gas and there are other sources of electric) but unfortunately it's really high monetary cost (since the electric costs about 3x the gas, so even if the heat pump were free, it costs twice as much to run; electric prices follow gas prices closely so they don't get cheaper when gas runs short). So it's a hard sell. I think they're clever devices, I like them, I will probably buy one. But they're no panacea.
slavik81 4y ago
I tried to get a heat pump this summer when I got AC installed. The AC systems all worked with my existing furnace, but the dealer didn't have any heat pumps that could supplement my existing furnace. It was a sad moment for me when I had to give up on that.
- nightski 4y ago
  Yeah I just had the exact same experience. It was frustrating, I was really looking for a heat pump.
zionic 4y ago
Modern ones work, like you said, down to -20F. One important caveat however is that they don't not-work below -20F, they just fall back to "emergency heat" aka resistive coils. While of course emergency-heat uses far more power that power can still be green. The biggest problem remaining is cost, $20k+ for a 24 SEER heat pump is just bonkers.

japhib 4y ago

Nice. I hope this goes through, although there's approximately a 0% chance that it will, or if it does, conservative justices will likely strike it down pretty quickly.

tastyfreeze 4y ago
Ok, lets think this through a bit. About 48% of homes in the US are heated with natural gas. This is mostly because it is the cheapest option available in many areas. The immediate result of banning natural gas heating is more expensive heating for 48% of homes. The longer term result is more expensive home ownership. More expensive home ownership means less people able to afford a home. People are going to use the cheapest option to heat their home. If you truly want people to switch from natural gas then make a cheaper option. Forcing change is rarely the best course. Make something cheaper or easier and people will change on their own. You don't see many horse and buggies or gas lights around much anymore. They were supplanted by better options not forced.
- smileysteve 4y ago
  I'm in a new home partly heated (thanks to the gas company subsidizing installs) by natural gas, it's a fleece of the Monopoly power granted by my state. In the southeast, my furnace is used 3 months a year, my highest bill is $50 in the last 12 months. But in ~9 months of 0 therm usage, the minimum bill is $30. (That's right, 3/5 of every home in my region is likely to overhead) But it's not just a fleece from the billing and the rate. Maintaining the infrastructure is supported by my property taxes and state income taxes (and the additional overhead of unneeded infrastructure in road maintenance, disasters, or simple things like utility marking. Then there are other fleeces involved that are strictly job creation. "De-regulation" where every year I have to play a game to get the best teaser rate to get the same gas (that might be traded differently) (when the state commissioner can require rates be a certain point in the market as they do of the - same company by the way - electric infrastructure.) So I have to pay with my time, and in many ways money, just to play this game. The heat is quick, the gas stove is slower than induction (I have a single induction unit I use most of the time), and the fireplace is comforting.

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

Please explain to me how an electric heat pump - even one designed to be highly efficient in a cold climate - is supposed to keep me from freezing to death when my power goes out every winter from an ice storm taking down trees (which take down my power lines) when it's -17F outside. If I didn't have a propane furnace I'd have to fly to Florida every winter.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
In my case at least, my natural gas furnace doesn't work without electricity. I'd need a backup generator for it.
- 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
  Mine also uses electricity but a very small amount. When the power goes out I use a car battery, with a mini generator or my car to recharge. Also use it for my well water pump. (Afaik I'd need substantially more power for an electric heat pump for 2 weeks)
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Interesting. My well water pump is 220v and draws quite a few amps. At least on start. I don't think I could run it off my "backup generation" (12amp 120v outlet coming out of my Outlander PHEV). It's also hard wired right to the panel.
    - amluto 4y ago
      Some pumps can be connected to some sort of soft start circuit. Others, especially three phase pumps, can run off a VFD that will start it quite gently. (And those VFDs run off single phase power just fine — they create a third phase internally.) And some pumps (e.g. Grundfos SQE) have their own drives down the hole.
      - cmrdporcupine 4y ago

testfoobar 4y ago

In the US, use of residential natural gas has stayed nearly constant for decades. Natural gas use for electricity generation on the other hand has nearly gone up by 4 times in the past 40 years: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natural-gas.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natur... Restricting or eliminating home usage of natural gas seems identical in its relative ineffectiveness as restricting home water use while ignoring large agricultural users.

tialaramex 4y ago
These are very different because of the end goal. A world where we don't drive our food and eventually ourselves extinct is a world with vastly less gas use, to the point where the uses you highlighted (both electricity generation and home heating) are both eliminated entirely while I assure you we're not going to stop using water. We need to change how it's assigned, who gets access and to how much, but we're not going to eliminate it. So then the question is, if we're eliminating all gas usage, why do A before B rather than B before A and the answer to that is very simple. Electricity is fungible, and it's much harder to change all the millions of individual home and small business installations, so you should begin with that first or you'll never get done.
- pythonaut_16 4y ago
  You're proving the parent's point. Electricity is fungible so it will be easier to replace natural gas used for electricity than the millions of homes heated by it.
- dogman144 4y ago
  This makes all of zero sense, especially for a forum populated by engineer-types who are familiar with turning abstract ideas into tangible and highly scalable applications. A subset of users who use a ton in % terms, and can be targeted cleanly and clearly to change use, translates into a large % decrease with the minimal amount of work. You are suggesting a waterfall-style approach. Toil for years because it’s harder?

colpabar 4y ago

I am all for heat pumps, but this seems a bit extreme. They want this to be enacted within one year? They want a gas stove to be regulated the same way as a power plant? At a time when we _badly_ need to build more housing that people can actually afford, artificially raising the cost of building new homes also seems problematic. The rhetoric used by the republican lawmakers opposed to it does sound like the usual anti-regulation talking points, but I have to agree with them in this case. This would make life a lot harder and more expensive for a lot of people and I don't think "a few environmental groups" is enough consensus for the entire country.

jdhn 4y ago
They're starting off by stating their ultimate goal (ban natural gas), but will end up walking it back as a "compromise" in order to seem not as extreme.
jabl 4y ago
Would it actually raise the cost? Yes, a heat pump is more expensive than a gas furnace, but for an all-electric home you save the cost of a gas hookup. Hell, when building new neighborhoods, can save infrastructure costs by not building out gas infrastructure. Also, depending on what kind of heat pump you install it can also function as an AC unit, so you don't need to install separate AC. Besides, if you're concerned about affordable housing, wouldn't (in the US at least) the first priority be to kill single-family zoning?

seltzered_ 4y ago

"The petition, if implemented by the EPA, would require homeowners to replace gas appliances when they break down or must be replaced with expensive new heat pump technology." Assuming a heat pump lasts about 10 years, Has there been any analysis of the supply chain dependencies or repairability of heat pumps? I've asked this elsewhere and have had trouble figuring this out. Saying this as someone currently fixing an old house, made haphazard 'kotatsu' heating setups, seen plenty of videos and articles evangelizing heat pumps, yet feel like there's little asked about the long term resilience or repairability of a given tech despite the greater efficiency.

msh 4y ago
I think they last a lot longer than 10 years. I am not in the US but have been looking at air to water heat pumps and several of them are sold with 15 years warranty.
smileysteve 4y ago
> Assuming a heat pump lasts about 10 years Residential heat pumps are estimated to last 20-25 years; with typical services being capacitor changes, electromechanical contactors, and coil cleaning. Digital thermostats from 15 years ago prevent the most common compressor issues. Smart thermostats can now detect symptoms proactively. In the last 15 years, we've seen technological advances in compressor, gas, and electronics (as well as air to ground and air to water). And better calculations for sizing and air quality.

fallingfrog 4y ago

This feels like something that really only makes sense as part of a greater plan. Like, if the government announced they were phasing out fossil fuel home heating by providing heat pumps in new construction for cheap, while simultaneously having a plan to expand the power grid to accommodate the new power requirements, that would be fine. But this feels really slapdash and is likely to have unanticipated side effects.

smileysteve 4y ago
In the US, there is a recent "inflation reduction act" that passed (< 1 month ago, after 2 years of discussion) in reconciliation that offers tax credits for heat pump, heat pump water heaters, solar panels, and electric cars - subsidizes renewable energy sources - and to some chagrin, subsidizes traditional electrical generation energy sources.
- celestialcheese 4y ago
  Up to 8k rebate for heat pumps too, which is enough to push middle class eco conscious people to spend the extra money. Although for colder climates, installs can be nearly 3x as much as nat gas, so drop in the bucket. Also doesn't account for costs related to panel upgrades that often needs to happen in older homes to handle all these new electric appliances.
  - smileysteve 4y ago
    I want induction, but no 240 to range because it's gas. It's insulated well (every vertical wire well sealed) so getting new electrical in means significant access holes to be made. Similar with hot water heater, brand new, so I don't feel like it's reasonable to go buy a new hybrid.

potbelly83 4y ago

How about first tackling the low hanging fruit like a) private jet flights b) cruise ships c) methane production by agriculture rather than again putting all the responsibility on the working/middle classes?

nxm 4y ago
That will adversely impact the lives of the rich which push for the common man to take the blunt of the economic pain, which is a non starter.
- jlkuester7 4y ago
  In general I agree with you. Pretty much any regulation meant to target the rich ends up coming back to bite the middle class somehow. That being said, after thinking about it for awhile, I have really struggled to come up with a scenario where there is negative consequences for common folks caused by more regulation of private jets. Worst thing I can think of is the disruption of aerospace jobs that it would cause.
ivan_gammel 4y ago
How about moving the working/middle class from single family homes to apartment complexes and starting using public transportation instead of cars? That would certainly be more energy efficient than cancelling a few private jet flights.
- nxm 4y ago
  So the lower class folks have to uproot their lives so that the rich can continue theirs?
- baggy_trough 4y ago
  How about letting people live like they want?
  - ivan_gammel 4y ago

it_citizen 4y ago

> We are facing the worst energy crisis since Jimmy Carter, yet these inflation-loving leftists are more worried about how to take away Americans’ reliable heating than they are about creating viable solutions. It is pretty insane how debating a hot topic is now impossible. They are not even able to consider that an opposing political force might have different priorities or might simply be misguided. They just want to steal heating from americans because they are evil.

tastyfreeze 4y ago

How about making an alternative to natural gas that is cheaper to heat a home instead of making everybody's life worse by forcing your morals into law.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Unfortunately what will happen instead is natural gas is going to become just-as or almost-as expensive as oil or electric heat. Honestly if I could go back 10 years when I replaced my oil furnace with gas, I'd definitely attempt to install a ground source heat pump instead. With the gas change it "paid for itself" in about 5 years, and I'd still be waiting for the ground source system, but I'd be frankly more future proof. I can generate my own electricity with solar. I can't make my own natural gas.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Air source heat pumps have improved to the point that ground source heat pumps are losing out in most places.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Even in rural places with more room and potentially cheaper excavation? In my case I'm on 6 acres.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Yes, I believe it's the case even there.
      - jabl 4y ago
        Can confirm. Over here 20 years ago you would be laughed out of the room if you suggested to use an air-source heat pump to heat a house. Nowadays they are the norm, and ground source are a minority. It also helps that building insulation standards have crept upwards, so you don't need as much energy to heat a modern building, making it a win for the lower capital cost of an air source system.

baggy_trough 4y ago

This is the equivalent of Californian towns banning natural gas at the same time that electrical power goes off for multiple hours or even days during heat waves.

mcbishop 4y ago

Like other commenters, I wouldn't support this ban. With that said... I went to the Pickathon music festival last month (near Portland). The festival requires that all food from vendors be served in a reusable wide/shallow plastic bowl. Put the dirty bowl in a bin, and get a token for the next food purchase. Same idea with a tin cup, but attendees hold onto the cup (it comes with a carabiner). No single-use plastic allowed. Friends and I found the system easy and pleasant. A festival founder said in an interview that he hasn't heard complaints. He said other festivals have tried making this an option, but it didn't get traction. The point is... sometimes it's easier for people to adjust to a new hard requirement, vs. swimming up-stream in a society that's very slow to adapt (because we're overwhelmed and status quo is known and relatively safe).

colpabar 4y ago
The difference here is that the festival made it harder for the vendors, not the consumers. People can still get their food. To make it analogous to banning natural gas, imagine if the festival banned plastic utensils and told everyone they had to buy their own, and they had to be a very specific kind that was expensive. I’m all in favor of what the festival did though. I hate how much trash large gatherings can produce.
- mcbishop 4y ago
  I agree. A successful natural-gas ban would require impeccable execution (with huge public investment). I wouldn't trust federal gov't or state gov'ts to pull that off.

TedShiller 4y ago

Yes let’s use electricity which comes from coal

steviedotboston 4y ago
not sure where you live but the majority of my electricity in the midwest comes from nuclear power
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  The Sierra Club also wants to get rid of nuclear power.
pfdietz 4y ago
In the US, just 21.8% of electrical generation comes from coal.
- chollida1 4y ago
  > In the US, just 21.8% of electrical generation comes from coal. That seems incredibly high. Canada is less than half of that. In a country with a far more spread out population and colder winters.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    It's come down a lot in the last 15 years or so. Canada has lots and lots of hydro (59.3% of Canada's electricity generation), and the low population density means it will cover much of your demand.

francisofascii 4y ago

I was hoping the process of converting biomass to natural gas would someday become viable, since so many existing homes are setup for NG. https://scitechdaily.com/efficient-new-catalytic-approach-directly-converts-raw-biomass-into-natural-gas-with-low-carbon-footprint/ https://scitechdaily.com/efficient-new-catalytic-approach-di...

tamaharbor 4y ago

Isn’t natural gas an integral component of the electricity generation required to operate heat pumps?

pfdietz 4y ago
Natural gas is not required for anything. In particular, it's not required to back up renewables. It may currently be cheapest for doing that, but it's not required for it, and alternatives such as batteries and hydrogen would be affordable (and cheaper than nuclear).
- tamaharbor 4y ago
  I did not say natural gas was required, but it is used to produce 38% of electricity in the US at this time.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    You insinuated (by the leading question) that it was an "integral component of the electricity generation required". In what sense is that not saying it's required? "Integral" used in this sense means "essential". That is, without it, there would not be electricity generation. If your point is just "natural gas is currently used for electricity generation", then that's no argument against using heat pumps. I'll add that you get more heating from using NG combined cycle + a modern home heat pump than you'd get just burning the NG in a home furnace.
    - denimnerd42 4y ago
      Isn't that efficiency highly variable on outside temperature?
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        In practice it's not going to push it over the line, especially with modern heat pumps, which having amazingly good COP even at very low temperature. Gas-fired heat pumps might still be more efficient (or might not), as one is also effectively capturing and using the waste heat from the generation of work from the gas.

zcw100 4y ago

I agree with most of the comments about how ineffective this would be and the numerous problems it would cause but to provide some balance this is not some edict, or even law. Two dozen organizations "petitioned" the EPA. This is the equivalent of sending a strongly worded letter saying, "Could you pretty please do this?". It can and probably will go straight into the trash. These are environmental organizations, of course they sent a letter. That's what they do. They'll also probably get a letter from all the heat pump manufacturers saying they're cool with it, and other letters from people selling natural gas and gas furnaces. I'm sure they'd like you to stop cutting down trees and that ain't going to happen either.

bjt2n3904 4y ago

I know this sentiment is unpopular here on HN, but when are we going to realize that environmentalism is a death cult? Burning coal to run the electric cars. Shutting down nuclear reactors, and increasing dependence on oil from oppressive countries. Banning the sale of ICE vehicles, and forcing everyone to move onto electric vehicles when the existing grid can't even support air conditioning. Punitively taxing the use of fertilizer during a time of food shortage. I'm all out of charity guys. These people don't want to save the environment. They just want to create suffering.

hotz 4y ago
Unfortunately some people will never wake up.

BurningFrog 4y ago

The Sierra Club was once a fairly pragmatic organization. Those days are long gone.

snowwrestler 4y ago

If this petition was to ban the general cutting and burning of wood for cooking and heating, we would all laugh because the downsides of powering our lifestyles that way are so obvious to us today. Some people do use wood for heating (in a wood-burning stove for example) but those are rare exceptions that either make sense contextually (a cabin far from infrastructure) or as a sort of aesthetic experience, like playing your favorite album on vinyl instead of Spotify. But we all know why we should not heat, say, every house in Chicago primarily by cutting and burning trees. I think folks in the future will feel the same way about pulling a bunch of gas out of the ground and individually burning that in our basements, closets, or kitchens. Furnaces are, let’s face it, very old school, dirty and poorly optimized technologies. I can literally see the blue flames through gaps in the metal when my furnace is on, and it’s a nice new high-efficiency model that is less than a decade old. I have carbon monoxide alarms in my bedrooms. Great. Sure, this petition is a blunt instrument that would cause havoc if implemented as written. But the thing about transitions is that you have to start somewhere or it will never happen. Can we agree that phasing out gas makes sense? Even if this specific petition is flawed.

baggy_trough 4y ago
Advocating for policies that "would cause havoc" is a bad idea if you want your movement to be attractive to the marginal voter.
clumsysmurf 4y ago
In Phoenix, seems people use fires for atmosphere as soon as it gets below 80'F. They probably also have the air conditooner on at the same time :P
pandaman 4y ago
As far as I know, nobody banned wood stoves in the US in order to transition to gas. People transitioned to the better option of gas themselves. As it is now, gas is a better option than electric not just for heat but for other appliances too (cooking, drying, hot water). This is why you want to ban gas. When/if electric appliances become better than gas people will switch to them naturally, without any need for regulation. The same way they switched from horses to cars and from burning wood to burning gas.

bilsbie 4y ago

I think solar and battery will be there so soon! Why not let people be comfortable during the transition instead of destabilizing society?

algoatecorn 4y ago

HN is supposed to be a place of discourse and problem solving. I'm not a heat system scholar. Are there any experts on this matter who would be able to point me toward figures and data regarding: - electricity sources for heating - percentage of emissions coming from home heating via natural gas vs coal-originating electric heaters - efficiency of progress over the years, expected trajectory - predictions for how this will all actually play out, without hyperbole

hwillis 4y ago
> electricity sources for heating Weird question. You're looking for "carbon intensity", the CO2 emitted per kWh: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1133295/electric-sector-carbon-dioxide-emission-rate-by-state-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1133295/electric-sector-... > percentage of emissions coming from home heating via natural gas vs coal-originating electric heaters Surely you mean relative emissions, not percent. Natural gas creates 53 kg of CO2 per mmBTU. A good heat pump (for instance: https://www.fujitsu-general.com/us/products/vrf/j4/aou60rlavm4.html https://www.fujitsu-general.com/us/products/vrf/j4/aou60rlav...) has a COP of 3.6+, meaning 3.6 kWh of heat per kWh of electricity. Alternately, 81.4+ kWh per mmBTU. Any state with a carbon intensity below 1,435 lbs CO2 per MWh will emit less CO2 using a heat pump rather than natural gas. Six states have higher carbon intensities: Utah, Indiana, Missouri, Wyoming, Kentucky and West Virginia. In the state with the lowest carbon intensity, Washington, 1 mmBTU of natural gas will emit 7.21x as much CO2 as 1 mmBTU from a heat pump. > efficiency of progress over the years, expected trajectory Heat pumps are already half the price of gas heating, per BTU. The carbon intensity in those 6 states will rapidly decrease as natural gas outcompetes coal. In 5 years it's likely every state will have <1435 carbon intensity.

kevinpet 4y ago

The supreme court just slapped down the EPA for trying to overstep their authority. Regardless of the merits of banning natural gas for heating, this is pure grandstanding because they know the EPA cannot do this. On the merits, requiring replacement with a different type of unit is foolish policy and not the right starting point. As it stands now, new houses are still being built with natural gas. Eliminating that would be a bigger win, and twenty years from now you can work on phasing out what already exists.

pfdietz 4y ago
The IRA addressed that ruling by formally stating that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pollutants. This grants the EPA the authority that SCOTUS said they were lacking. So, you should have said the EPA "could not do this, but now they can." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court...
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  > CO2 and other greenhouse gases are pollutants As an aside, that is going to have some weird unforeseen effects at low levels because it means that almost every car and every dwelling or heated structure emits "pollutants" and there's god knows how many other laws that they therefore become subject to.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Every last thing powered by fossil fuels is a valid target for pollution control, yes. I'm glad you understand the scope of the problem.
- landemva 4y ago
  If CO2 is a pollutant, then elimination of exhaling humans is a logical focus for Sierra Club.
  - pfdietz 4y ago

justinzollars 4y ago

If you are a member of the Sierra Club, now is a good time to consider revoking your membership. Natural gas is a great source of energy and as we will soon see in Europe, not easily replaced. Europe faces an economic depression because its supply natural gas has been intentionally cut off. This is not a serious proposal today. Cancel Membership here: https://donotpay.com/learn/cancel-sierra-club/#:~:text=To%20cancel%20with%20Sierra%20Club,and%20anything%20else%20considered%20relevant https://donotpay.com/learn/cancel-sierra-club/#:~:text=To%20.... > To cancel with Sierra Club directly, send them an email with your request at member.care@sierraclub.org. It is recommended to include as much information as possible, such as your membership ID, account information, and anything else considered relevant.

asow92 4y ago

Are they going to pay to have my gas furnace replaced with a heat pump and buy me a new range? (as a side note: I prefer gas ranges over electric and induction in my cooking experience) Otherwise I'm going to freeze and go broke in Upstate NY.

mech987 4y ago

Isn't heating a really good way to use natural gas compared to other ways to use it? 90%+ efficiency ain't bad.

pfdietz 4y ago
That's actually poor efficiency, since there's a large second law loss burning the natural gas to make low grade heat. You can get COP > 100% with a gas-fired heat pump, which are used commercially and in some larger (> 4000 sq. ft.) homes.

jedberg 4y ago

Their goal is to get people switch to electric heat pumps. So basically we know: 1. Gas is bad 2. Heat pumps are a viable alternative (maybe in most cases?) 3. The supply of heat pumps is low because they aren't popular (yet). This is a standard problem with two standard solutions: 1. Ban the bad thing, forcing the market to shift to the alternative, causing a lot of short term pain as the supply chain for the new thing ramps up 2. Subsidize the new thing with government money so that it's cheaper than the old thing and people naturally shift to it as they build new or upgrade. Option 1 makes it happen faster while sacrificing some people (usually poor and marginalized groups) while option 2 is more friendly to society at the cost of slower adoption. Seems like the environmental groups are coming from the point of view of sacrificing some to make things move faster. They would probably make the argument that those people will be sacrificed anyway during rapid climate change. So the real debate here is, will climate change slow down enough to make a difference based on the speed of adoption of residential heat pumps? I don't think it will. In which case option 2 is the better one -- subsidize heat pumps, don't ban gas.

celestialcheese 4y ago
Option 2 is what just passed with the IRA. Nearly 4.5b in rebates for things like heat pumps, electric stoves, upgraded electrical and insulation. [1] I imagine we'll be seeing a lot more mailers ad sales folks next year crawling middle and lower income neighborhoods selling packages that take full advantages of these credits. No clue how supply chains are going to handle the increased material demands these electric appliances need, but it'll be interesting to watch. 1 - https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/inflation-reduction-act https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/inflation-reduction-a...

nathanaldensr 4y ago

These people want you starving, freezing, homeless, and, frankly, dead. I hope everyone plans accordingly. You are the carbon they want to eliminate.

Georgelemental 4y ago

They are not petitioning the people's representatives in Congress or the state legislatures; they are petitioning the unelected bureaucrats who have the real power to make sweeping changes to the daily lives of 300+ million Americans. "Our Democracy" becomes more risible each year

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

New homes shouldn't be allowed gas hookups. Isn't that already the case in California? edit: answer, yes basically, city and state rules are moving in that direction https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2021/07/californias-cities-lead-way-pollution-free-homes-and-buildings https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2021/07/californias-citi... You can avoid a lot of wasted time and energy by designing for gas free homes from the start. They're also cheaper to build and to heat. This petition is correct that we need to help low income people to insulate and heat their homes with electricity. But it feels like the EPA stuff may just be lining up a federal ban hammer for states that don't implement sensible rules in the meantime.

CodeWriter23 4y ago

Cool! So, wood stove then?