35 ms·

The reason why there’s a battle about gas stoves is that people care a lot more about the way they cook than the way they heat their house, but if they cook wit

The reason why there’s a battle about gas stoves is that people care a lot more about the way they cook than the way they heat their house, but if they cook with gas, then they heat with gas. So if you want to push people away from gas heating towards electric heat pumps, then you need to attack gas stoves

Philorandroid 4y ago
That would be the pragmatic solution; but in states like CA, where rolling blackouts are already commonplace to reduce the strain on the grid, the implications of mandating the use of more electricity seem dire.
resoluteteeth 4y ago
Huh? The reason people have been talking about stopping use of gas stoves is that they put out pollution inside people's homes, which is pretty separate from the overall dialogue about fossil fuels or how to heat homes.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Approximately a year ago several jurisdictions banned gas hookups in new developments. The pushback was significant and severe, and it was all focused on how awesome gas stoves were. Now we're seeing the pushback for the pushback. fvdesson is right.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  It's both, the climate impacts are absolutely part of it too.
- ufmace 4y ago
  Since when is there pollution inside homes from gas stoves? How have all of the millions of gas stove users been cooking multiple meals with them on a daily basis and nobody noticed this supposed pollution?
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    https://oem.bmj.com/content/60/10/759 https://oem.bmj.com/content/60/10/759 There's an article from 2003 so this isn't exactly new.
  - smileysteve 4y ago
    Because establishing a direct link to childhood athsma takes many data points, especially with a dirty sample group, such as parents who may or may not have had athsma also caused by gas stoves.
sokoloff 4y ago
If you want to push people away from gas heating, just tax the shit out of gas. No household uses enough gas for cooking that it would matter that much to them. (We cook a fair amount and heat domestic water with gas. In the summer, our bills are around $30/mo, including about $12 in fixed charges. Quadruple the usage charges [add a 300% tax], and if I want to cook with gas, I still will, but I sure as hell will get rid of my gas water heater and boiler.) If you roll out the tax as 25% starting in July, increasing 25% every 3 months after that until it hits 300%, people have some time to plan for it and you don't hit them this winter. Maybe you need to return 1/3 of the tax money to low-income households who are having a hard time getting their equipment upgraded in a timely fashion and 1/3 of the tax money in incentives to that same group [and landlords of affordable housing] to help them cover the capital costs. Trying to backhand it by making people "not want" gas stoves seems like a longer and less certain path than just giving people economic incentives to do the thing that you want them to do.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Two things: - That would have an immediate financial impact on people with gas boilers in a way that banning new gas appliances does not. This kind of thing would need to be rolled out very slowly over time if you want to avoid extreme backlash. Constraints on new construction don't have the same effects. (EDIT: Ah, you edited your comment to address this one - sure, if you can reliably distribute funds for lower-income people to replace their appliances then maybe. I bet you still get a lot of backlash from people who can afford it but don't want to though. Unless it's rolled out very slowly.) - Ultimately we need to get rid of the infrastructure piping all that gas around too, as that's where a lot of the climate impacts come from. Any new gas usage at all, whether for cooking or heating, makes it harder to do that.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    I just installed a new gas boiler (I wanted to go electric but it was massively economically disadvantageous). That thing is probably going to run for 20 years. If you have patience to wait a handful of decades, attacking gas stoves and waiting for trickle-up in consumer preferences to happen could be a good play. If you want faster change, tax and rebate is probably a better plan. Utilities already have the means to bill and tax fuel. Most already have conservation rebate schemes in place. Many already have low-income billing plans and rate cards (probably all have multiple rate cards). I think you could reliably administer a tax, rebate, and capital credit scheme using mostly existing mechanisms.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
astura 4y ago
>if they cook with gas, then they heat with gas Not true, at least not by definition. I heat with oil and cook with gas. My gas stove is fed by an outdoor propane tank that's filled once a year. When I was house hunting there were plenty of houses with gas ranges but I didn't see a single one with gas heat, that's really uncommon here.
- fatnoah 4y ago
  Same. My neighborhood has lots of gas stoves, but no gas service. Nearly every house has propane for cooking and oil for heating.

Philorandroid 4y ago

That would be the pragmatic solution; but in states like CA, where rolling blackouts are already commonplace to reduce the strain on the grid, the implications of mandating the use of more electricity seem dire.

resoluteteeth 4y ago

Huh? The reason people have been talking about stopping use of gas stoves is that they put out pollution inside people's homes, which is pretty separate from the overall dialogue about fossil fuels or how to heat homes.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Approximately a year ago several jurisdictions banned gas hookups in new developments. The pushback was significant and severe, and it was all focused on how awesome gas stoves were. Now we're seeing the pushback for the pushback. fvdesson is right.
ryukafalz 4y ago
It's both, the climate impacts are absolutely part of it too.
ufmace 4y ago
Since when is there pollution inside homes from gas stoves? How have all of the millions of gas stove users been cooking multiple meals with them on a daily basis and nobody noticed this supposed pollution?
- cinntaile 4y ago
  https://oem.bmj.com/content/60/10/759 https://oem.bmj.com/content/60/10/759 There's an article from 2003 so this isn't exactly new.
- smileysteve 4y ago
  Because establishing a direct link to childhood athsma takes many data points, especially with a dirty sample group, such as parents who may or may not have had athsma also caused by gas stoves.

sokoloff 4y ago

If you want to push people away from gas heating, just tax the shit out of gas. No household uses enough gas for cooking that it would matter that much to them. (We cook a fair amount and heat domestic water with gas. In the summer, our bills are around $30/mo, including about $12 in fixed charges. Quadruple the usage charges [add a 300% tax], and if I want to cook with gas, I still will, but I sure as hell will get rid of my gas water heater and boiler.) If you roll out the tax as 25% starting in July, increasing 25% every 3 months after that until it hits 300%, people have some time to plan for it and you don't hit them this winter. Maybe you need to return 1/3 of the tax money to low-income households who are having a hard time getting their equipment upgraded in a timely fashion and 1/3 of the tax money in incentives to that same group [and landlords of affordable housing] to help them cover the capital costs. Trying to backhand it by making people "not want" gas stoves seems like a longer and less certain path than just giving people economic incentives to do the thing that you want them to do.

ryukafalz 4y ago
Two things: - That would have an immediate financial impact on people with gas boilers in a way that banning new gas appliances does not. This kind of thing would need to be rolled out very slowly over time if you want to avoid extreme backlash. Constraints on new construction don't have the same effects. (EDIT: Ah, you edited your comment to address this one - sure, if you can reliably distribute funds for lower-income people to replace their appliances then maybe. I bet you still get a lot of backlash from people who can afford it but don't want to though. Unless it's rolled out very slowly.) - Ultimately we need to get rid of the infrastructure piping all that gas around too, as that's where a lot of the climate impacts come from. Any new gas usage at all, whether for cooking or heating, makes it harder to do that.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I just installed a new gas boiler (I wanted to go electric but it was massively economically disadvantageous). That thing is probably going to run for 20 years. If you have patience to wait a handful of decades, attacking gas stoves and waiting for trickle-up in consumer preferences to happen could be a good play. If you want faster change, tax and rebate is probably a better plan. Utilities already have the means to bill and tax fuel. Most already have conservation rebate schemes in place. Many already have low-income billing plans and rate cards (probably all have multiple rate cards). I think you could reliably administer a tax, rebate, and capital credit scheme using mostly existing mechanisms.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

astura 4y ago

>if they cook with gas, then they heat with gas Not true, at least not by definition. I heat with oil and cook with gas. My gas stove is fed by an outdoor propane tank that's filled once a year. When I was house hunting there were plenty of houses with gas ranges but I didn't see a single one with gas heat, that's really uncommon here.

fatnoah 4y ago
Same. My neighborhood has lots of gas stoves, but no gas service. Nearly every house has propane for cooking and oil for heating.