Hacker News Reader

Comment by mgleason_3 | Hacker News Reader

Cooking accounts for less than a percent of total natural gas. So, no, we don't need to start here. We need to start where it makes a difference.

60% of US electricity is generated from fossil fuels (1). 40% of that is from Natural Gas. 20% from Coal which produces almost twice the carbon as Natural Gas.

60% of that energy is lost in conversion (2). So, converting from natural gas to electricity would actually increase carbon emissions in many parts of the US.

So, where should we start? I'm not an expert, but just this quick analysis says decreasing the amount of fossil fuels used for US generation would be a much better choice.

1. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427

2. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44436

View on HN

> 60% of that energy is lost in conversion

However, unlike for a home gas boiler where the efficiency is maybe 90%, direct efficiency for gas stoves is poor. Basically you set fire to the gas, the fire is near the pans you're using for cooking, so they get hot. It's simple, but it is not at all efficient. This also produces waste CO2 (and some CO but hopefully not much), which is poisonous although not that poisonous, right where you are standing, whereas your gas boiler vents the waste gas to the outside air.

In contrast induction has much better efficiency and of course produces no poisonous gases itself (though cooking foods does release a variety of volatiles you shouldn't really breathe, especially pan frying)

So while "Burn gas in your home" to heat water is definitely a net efficiency win over "Burn gas in a power station, ship the electricity to your home, then use that" to heat water, the same does not follow for stoves where I suspect it's either a wash or a small win for electricity.

Water heating, like cooking should not be a significant part of the home power equation when done right.

Large boilers need to die. Small "instant heaters" at or very close to each faucet is the correct way. Way way way less energy usage.

Sadly the electrical water heater units usually don't have access to the 240v line and are limited to 120v, 10A or something measly. People then complain their water doesn't heat fast enough or get hot enough for a given flow and then complain/swear off small instant heaters =/

Just did the math and supporting a ~70F (50F-> 120F) rise at 1GPM (faucets are limited to about this) requires 9kW, or about 40A at 240W. Supporting a bunch of 40A circuits in a typical home would require a massively upgraded circuit panel for most homes -- 200A or even 100A service is common.

A centralized system avoids having multiple circuits with potentially high loads like this. Not to mention the likely gigantic heat exchangers required to transfer 9kW!

Cooking is a negligible amount of the gas use, but in warmer states gas networks will do rebate deals with developers to get gas appliances into new homes to keep the domestic networks expanding. There can be transmission loss in these networks and curbing demand for appliances (Via City regulation) stops them expanding.

Also, at least in my country, the network connection fee to the gas network is often higher than the gas used by appliances, (warm climate) and residential cooks don't realise they're subsidisng the cost of our business gas users.

> So, converting from natural gas to electricity would actually increase carbon emissions in many parts of the US.

Yes, but the plan is a more clean grid in the future. If you are building a new home now then this calculus (hopefully) will not hold in 20 years. If we've got a clean grid but everybody is still using gas to heat their homes, we've still got a huge problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com